The Delta variant will cause 'very dense outbreaks' in these five states, expert says

If the vaccine works so well why are the vaccinated so scared of the disease?

 

All you will get is ‘but republicans and Trump supporters’.

 

Can’t deal with the fact hormones are not FDA approved for use in dysphoria? Facts never were your thing. But you are consistent in your denial of science. Can always count on you taking the anti empirical evidence side of any argument.

 

Thank for PROVING my point about Science DENIERS!

 

Asking a question proves something? Liberal logic 101.

 

The life cycle of a covid infection is 3 weeks and your testable claim in the OP has been falsified.

Arkansas has 0.91% of the US population but only 0.30% of the active cases.
Mississippi has 0.89% of the population but only 0.21% of the active cases.
Wyoming has 0.17% of the population but only 0.02% of the active cases.

I demand that you retract your false claims in the opening post, sincerely apologize and wear a MAGA hat for two weeks.

Now some of the Blue, Mandates Up The As, States that are handling this so much "better" than the Red Freedom and Liberty States?

Rhode Island has 0.32% of the population, but, 2.79% of the active cases
Maryland has 1.28% of the population but 8.80% of the active cases
Washington St has 2.29% of the population but 4.58% of the active cases
Virginia has 2.56% of the population but 12.23% of the active cases.
California has 11.86% of the population but 34.64% of the active cases.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

You pretend that authoritarianism is always the answer, yet, it clearly fails real world testing in the US. You trumpet authoritarianism even when it performs more poorly than Freedom and Liberty. In fact, I can predict what position you will favor by determining which is more authoritarian rather than which is more effective against the transmission of COVID.

Like those that used COVID to strip out election integrity, to some COVID is just the latest convenient vehicle to try to implement authoritarianism.

Here's a clue for the clueless, authoritarianism does not work and is not tolerated in the Western World and especially in the English Speaking portion of the Western world.

Time to give the wannabe authoritarians some electoral feedback and the knowledge that the rejection is coming is what drives the attack on the integrity of our Election systems, but, those attacks will fail too.

​

 

We're not. We are are afraid of being the small percent carrying the virus to others without having contracted it ourselves.

 

Oh cut the crap. They are not a secret and there are reasons they aren't being used more.

For starters, they are expensive, cumbersome and relatively complicated to use, and not as effective as the vaccines. They are mainly intended for use early in infected patients.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...9-successful-vaccines-complicate-their-future

 

LOL. You give me nonsense about Eli Lilly products which I have never advocated for? And January 2021 data? I’m talking about a different product from a different company in the present! You, like others who have challenged me on this need to educate yourselves. When you don’t, you embarrass yourselves and make yourselves look like you don’t care about people who can’t be vaccinated or who can’t mount an antibody response to vaccination. I find it sad. Very sad.

 

If that’s the case you should wear a mask during all flu seasons as well. If they didn’t get the vaccine or the flu shot they’re putting themselves at risk. You don’t need to protect them.

 

The flu is not as deadly as COVID-19.

 

Uh what? Monoclonal antibodies are snake oil? Wow. You seem to ignore that there are 79 of them approved by the FDA since 1986 to treat various conditions including cancers, and the three currently available Covid-19 monoclonal antibody treatments (the Regeneron 2-antibody cocktail, the Lilly 2-antibody one, and the GSK single antibody) have consistently shown efficacy in preventing hospitalizations and death in mild and moderate Covid-19 illness among high-risk patients. All three benefit from an FDA EUA with the Covid-19 indication. What exactly about them makes you think they are snake oil? They are actually very effective and in my hospital we routinely use them.

 

If it weren't inconvenient, I would wear a mask all the season as well as allergy seasons, Joe Knows.

 

@557 and @Derideo_Te

I hope both of you have realized that by now, the FDA has extended the EUA indication of the REGEN-COV anti-Covid-19 monoclonal antibody cocktail to post-exposure prophylaxis too, based on sound data.

557 at one point lamented that the FDA wasn't moving faster on this. I don't know, my friend, "damned if you do and damned if you don't" because many berate the FDA for authorizing the vaccines too fast... so they took a little while looking into the prophylaxis evidence for REGEN-COV, then authorized it. So what do you all want? Fast or slow? The FDA is burdened with tones of Covid-19 related issues and ALSO with all the other dozens of thousands of medications that are part of the American pharmaceutical arsenal to combat thousands of diseases. They can't magically authorize in days, a new medication (and if they did, then people would complain that it was too fast).

And Derideo_Te, you're generally a reasonable poster, so what makes you be so strongly against monoclonal antibodies? Together with the vaccines, they are both fabulous tools we now have, in our fight against this virus.

Monoclonal antibodies are a perfectly good treatment and they add to the mix, the possibility of treating the immunocompromised and those with many co-morbidities who don't get a good response to the vaccines. They are also instrumental in saving the life of any patient who is high risk. There is nothing wrong with these therapies. Someone here on PF called them snake oil, and this is utterly absurd.

We need to use all tools that we have at our disposal for curbing Covid-19.

In my hospital, we recommend vaccines to our patients, of course, but we do ALSO use monoclonal antibodies when warranted.

Here is the full text of the amended FDA Emergency Use Authorization for REGEN-COV:

https://www.fda.gov/media/145610/download

Yes, there is strong evidence of their efficacy. See this bit, from the report I linked to:

Is that the way you all believe that the FDA reports on the efficacy and safety of snake oil???

 

Post exposure prophylaxis is a step in the right direction. But I advocate for full on passive vaccination of the immunocompromised. Antibody test if a compromised person has had a full vaccination. If immunity is low, go the passive vaccine route. At least until we have more data on longevity of third boosters.

I was unaware of the September 9 update. I haven’t paid much attention since the first of September really to the details. I see they allowed two doses drawn from the larger vials now. That’s great for supply availability! Thanks for the updated EUA. Progress is good.

I think the FDA was plenty slow considering the product has been in use without problems for close to a year.

 

Yes, but the FDA is data-driven (or I hope it still is; this administration and the last one did seem to try break the FDA's streak of having career scientists calling the shots rather than politicians), so, more data on use of the mabs as passive vaccination should be obtained before they continue to move in this direction.

Well, you know, the vaccines have been in use for close to one year and people are up in arms that the FDA was too fast... like I said, one can't win.

 

Just out of curiosity, what more data would you like to see? We’ve accepted prevention of disease data from phase 3 trials for vaccines. What do you see different for monoclonal antibodies?
https://investor.regeneron.com/news...trial-showed-81-reduced-risk-symptomatic-sars

This trial was more rigorous than vaccine trials because it was conducted in individuals with known exposure. Is it the data set size that concerns you?

 

I'd like to see a direct comparison, within the same randomized trial, of vaccines versus mabs. I'd like to quantify the degree of protection yielded by these two strategies, without intervening factors such as individual behaviors, masking, underlying conditions, BMI, etc. And yes, bigger N would be desirable.

It is a big responsibility to approve/recommend a totally different strategy for prevention, in case that strategy is actually weaker than the existing and established one.

This, in an ideal world with no vaccine holdouts. We wouldn't want to divert people from the vaccines to the mabs without knowing if the mabs are at least equivalent.

But I do realize that it is a strange point in our political climate, because if the ones flocking in real life to the mabs are the vaccine holdouts, then it's obviously better that they get that, than nothing, since they are not likely to ever accept the vaccines anyway.

 

Marginally dangerous virus? Wow! Just, wow!

 

In the Uttar Pradesh region of India the delta variant killed ~25,000 out of 241 million. They passed out kits with Ivermectin.

We told people to go home and come to the hospital when they couldn’t breath.

Obviously we did it wrong.

 

When you do everything wrong it’s more dangerous. When you do everything right is a flu year. See the post above.

 

Sure that would be nice. But we didn’t do that with any of the other vaccines. And they have turned out to have varying efficiencies which doesn’t seem to particularly concern anyone.

The mAbs have been subjected to more rigorous testing than any of the vaccines. I see it as unnecessary to side by side trial as we didn’t with any of the others.

This is my opinion

 

I hear you and I can't say I disagree. I guess I'm just thinking that yes, vaccines have variable efficacy, but with the Italian study, we can see that maybe the variability is more linked to the person receiving the vaccine (obese? lots of comorbidities?), than to the vaccines themselves. So, if we could actually randomize two equal groups in all other aspects, we might have a real comparison of vaccines vs. mabs without the interference of all these other factors.

Yes, we didn't do this for the vaccines, but these are two very different strategies. I feel that going from one of several vaccines, to one of the three mabs, is a very different route so I'd like to have a clearer comparison of the two strategies.

 

Fair enough. I would like more data on predictors of individual efficacy as well. I’m frustrated there isn’t more data being accumulated outside of formal trials. I have to really dig to find solid information on what demographics are over represented in breakthrough infections. I’m surprised there isn’t more interest in the “who” and “why” of breakthroughs. The Italian study is definitely a nice piece of information in this regard.

 

You must be mistaking me for someone else or I made a mistake in a post somewhere.

I have no problem with treatments for diseases and, as in this instance, the need to vaccinate in order to reduce the severity of the Covid virus.

I do have a problem with the conspiracy spewers and the anti-vaxxers who reject Medical Science until they end up in a hospital begging for qualified professionals like yourself to save their lives.

Medicine is not infallible but it is the best tool we have and those who reject it in favor of snake oil can suffer the consequences of their ignorance as far as I am concerned.