Connect with us

U.S.

Preliminary Data Shows Covid-19 Vaccine is 90% Effective, Pfizer Says. More Data Still Needed Before the Vaccine Can Be Made Available.

Published

2 years ago

on

  • On Monday, Pfizer announced that late-stage trials for its coronavirus vaccine have, so far, been more than 90% effective.
  • The company, along with its partner BioNTech, are expected to apply for an emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration later this month.
  • Still, more data from Pfizer’s ongoing third-phase trials must be collected, and these results must ultimately be peer-reviewed by other experts in the field before the vaccine is proven to be both safe and effective.
  • Following the news, Vice President Mike Pence cited the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed as a key factor in Pfizer’s success, but as Pfizer stated, it has refused to accept government funding for vaccine research and development.

Pfizer Says Vaccine 90% Effective 

Pfizer and the German biotechnology firm BioNTech said on Monday that their joint coronavirus vaccine is more than 90% effective.

Notably, this is the strongest indication yet that a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine could soon be made available for millions of people. It’s also setting a record pace. Vaccines typically take years to develop.

“I would say it’s a historical moment,”  Kathrin Jansen, the head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, told The New York Times. “Something like this has never happened before.”

“The results are really quite good, I mean extraordinary,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, according to The Washington Post. 

The trial, which is currently in phase 3, involves over 43,500 people. Of those people, half were given two doses of the vaccine trial and half were given a placebo.

In total, 94 of the people in the study have contracted COVID-19 (defined by Pfizer’s researchers as testing positive and displaying symptoms). Notably, Pfizer’s 90% efficacy figure comes from determining whether each of these 94 people was given the actual vaccine or a placebo. For the vaccine candidate to be 90% effective, that would mean at least 85 of those people must have come from the placebo group. 

To note, the goal of vaccines are to prevent people from catching a virus, such as COVID-19 — not to treat people who’ve already been infected.

Pfizer to Apply for Emergency Authorization

Even though Pfizer’s announcement is a very hopeful sign, this data still needs to be peer-reviewed by other experts in the field. 

Among the crucial questions that must be answered, scientists will need to determine how long this vaccine candidate offers protection and how it performs on high-risk groups, such as those with weakened immune systems. They will also need to evaluate whether the 94 cases documented by Pfizer were mostly mild or severe, as well as how cases differed between those who received the vaccine and those who received the placebo. 

The trial itself also isn’t over. Pfizer and BioNTech will continue to collect data until 164 people in the trial contract COVID-19 — 70 more people. That could take a few weeks. Notably, it could also mean that the 90% efficacy finding could change. 

Nonetheless, Pfizer and BioNTech plan to submit an emergency authorization application to the Food and Drug Administration after the third week of this month, possibly sometime during the week of Thanksgiving.

The companies are waiting until then because they say that’s around the time they expect to have two full months of safety follow-up data, as well as data on their manufacturing process. 

Even though they’re officially waiting, Pfizer and BioNTech have already ramped up the production of their vaccine. According to The Washington Post, they hope to manufacture 50 million doses by the end of the year. Since the vaccine comes in two doses, that’d be enough for 25 million people. Beyond that, Pfizer and BioNTech have a goal of 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

If Pfizer’s data does turn out to be as good as it suggests, that may bode well for another company conducting late-stage trials: Moderna. Moderna’s vaccine is very similar to Pfizer’s, as both use RNA to generate immunity against the coronavirus. 

Pfizer Did Not Receive Government Support

Like many medical experts, politicians have been optimistic about these results. President-Elect Joe Biden, for example, congratulated “the brilliant men and women who helped produce this breakthrough and to give us such cause for hope.” 

In his statement, Biden also stressed the need to continue wearing masks, noting that Americans have died from COVID-19 at a rate of 1,000 people per day over the past week.

Meanwhile, President Trump celebrated the vaccine’s reported efficacy rate and the bump in the stock market that this news brought. To note, in addition to investors’ reaction to Pfizer, the stock market also saw initial gains Monday because Biden has now been projected to win the presidency.

In another tweet, Vice President Mike Pence celebrated Pfizer’s 90% efficacy projection; however, Pence also seemed to suggest that Pfizer and BioNTech’s success was because of a partnership with the U.S. government. 

In reality, unlike other vaccine developers that are also in late-stage trials, Pfizer never accepted any money from the government for vaccine research or development. 

The “public-private partnership” Pence is referring to in his tweet is known as Operation Ward Speed, the Trump administration’s initiative aimed at developing a coronavirus vaccine.  

“We were never part of the Warp Speed,” Jansen told The New York Times. “We have never taken any money from the U.S. government, or from anyone.”

In fact, the very reason Pfizer chose not to engage in Warp Speed was to remain independent and devoid of political influence. 

“We have always said that science is driving how we conduct ourselves — no politics,” Jansen told The Times.

To note, in July, the U.S. government did reach a deal to buy 100 million doses from Pfizer for nearly $2 billion. That contract also included an option for the government to buy 500 million more doses. Nonetheless, that is much different than trying to claim that Operation Warp Speed is the reason why Pfizer has a seemingly effective vaccine. 

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (INSIDER)

Related Topics:

U.S.

Kathy Griffin, Ethan Klein, More Suspended From Twitter Over Elon Musk Impersonations

Published

3 weeks ago

on

November 7, 2022

By

Many have pretended to be Musk in an attempt to highlight the potential issues paid-for verifications could cause on the platform.

Musk Takes on Impersonations

Comedian Kathy Griffin and internet personality Ethan Klein are among the many Twitter users that have been permanently suspended for impersonating the platform’s new CEO, Elon Musk.

Impersonation has long been against Twitter’s rules, but on Sunday, the billionaire took the policy a step further by announcing that “any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody’ will be permanently suspended.”

“Previously, we issued a warning before suspension, but now that we are rolling out widespread verification, there will be no warning,” Musk explained. “This will be clearly identified as a condition for signing up to Twitter Blue.”

Musk also said that any user who changes their name will temporarily lose their verification check mark. 

The announcement came as many verified users began mocking Musk by changing their name and photo to match his, then tweeting jokes that were either absurd or out of character for the business mogul. Many did this to protest Musk’s plan to charge an $8 monthly subscription fee that would allow any Twitter user to become verified. 

Klein was one of many who changed his name to “Elon Musk” and made a photo of the CEO his profile image. The podcast host sent out several jokes, including one referencing the increased use of the N-word on the platform since Musk’s takeover, and another referencing Jeffrey Epstein.

“Even though Jeffrey Epstein committed horrible crimes, I do still miss him on nights like this for his warmth and camaraderie. Rest In Peace old Friend,” he wrote. 

His account was quickly banned, but Klein defended himself on TikTok, arguing that both his cover photo and bio labeled his account as “parody” and therefore should be acceptable under Musk’s guidelines. 

“What more do you want from me?” he asked. “Comedy is dead. And Elon Musk dug the grave.” 

Protests of Musk’s Twitter Control

For her part, Griffin likewise tweeted while masquerading as Musk, writing that after “spirited discussion with the females in my life, I’ve decided that voting blue for their choice is only right.”

Musk joked that she was actually “suspended for impersonating a comedian” and added that she can have her account back if she pays for the $8 subscription. Griffin, however, found another way around the ban.

The comedian logged into her late mother’s Twitter account and began using the hashtag #FreeKathy while calling out Musk. 

“Mad Men” actor Rich Sommer and podcaster Griffin Newman have also had their accounts suspended for tweeting as Musk. Other celebrities, including TV producer Shonda Rhimes, musician Sara Bareilles, and model Gigi Hadid have protested Musk’s Twitter reign by leaving the platform altogether.

“For a long time, but especially with its new leadership, it’s becoming more and more of a cesspool of hate & bigotry, and it’s not a place I want to be a part of,” Hadid wrote on Instagram over the weekend. 

See what others are saying: (NBC News) (Variety) (The Verge)

Continue Reading

U.S.

AOC Says Twitter Notifications “Conveniently” Disabled After Criticizing Musk

Published

4 weeks ago

on

November 3, 2022

By

“What’s good? Doesn’t seem very free speechy to me,” she tweeted at the new CEO.

AOC Vs. Elon Musk

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said several of her Twitter features are “conveniently not working” after feuding with the platform’s new owner, billionaire Elon Musk.

Ocasio-Cortez has never been shy about her views on Musk. After he officially took charge of Twitter last week, the congresswoman began criticizing his new proposals for the social networking site, specifically his plan to charge an $8 subscription fee for verification. 

“Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that ‘free speech’ is actually a $8/mo subscription plan,” she wrote on Tuesday.

“Your feedback is appreciated, now pay $8,” Musk replied the following day.

Around an hour later, the business mogul sent another tweet appearing to call Ocasio-Cortez out for selling $58 sweatshirts. 

“Proud of this and always will be,” she shot back. “My workers are union, make a living wage, have full healthcare, and aren’t subject to racist treatment in their workplaces. Items are made in USA. Team AOC honors and respects working people. You should try it sometime instead of union-busting.”

In a follow-up tweet, she noted that proceeds go to community organizing programs, including one that tutors students who are falling behind because of COVID-19.

AOC’s Mentions Not Working

On Wednesday evening, just hours after her back-and-forth with Musk, Ocasio-Cortez told her followers that her “Twitter mentions/notifications conveniently aren’t working tonight.”

“I was informed via text that I seem to have gotten under a certain billionaire’s skin,” she added. “Just a reminder that money will never [buy] your way out of insecurity, folks.” 

The issue seemingly continued into Thursday morning when the Democrat tweeted a screenshot of her notifications page, which loaded no results. 

“Why should people pay $8 just for their app to get bricked when they say something you don’t like?” she tweeted at Musk. “This is what my app has looked like ever since my tweet upset you yesterday. What’s good? Doesn’t seem very free speechy to me.”

Musk has repeatedly claimed that one of his primary motives to buy Twitter was to protect free speech. Once taking the reigns as CEO, though, he did say he would start a content moderation council and make decisions jointly with them.

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (Insider)

Continue Reading

U.S.

South Carolina County Votes Against Moving LGBTQ+ Friendly Books Away from Children’s Section

Published

4 weeks ago

on

November 3, 2022

By

Efforts to limit LGBTQ+ content in libraries first began over the summer.

Attempts to Restrict LGBTQ+ Displays

The county council in Greenville County, South Carolina this week voted against discussing a resolution that would move all books “promoting sexuality” to the adult section.

This resolution is the culmination of months of turmoil in Greenville County. In June, libraries in the county removed Pride displays at the direction of library officials. Then in September, the county’s Republican Party executive board passed a resolution to call on the County Council to restrict access to books with LGBTQ+ themes and characters. 

The resolution was proposed by Joe Dill, an outgoing council member, as well as a member of the county’s Republican Party executive board. It proposed the council “officially order that no books or content, including digital copies or online accessible materials, promoting sexuality be allowed in the Children’s Sections of our public libraries.” 

Resolution Rejected

However, the resolution required the council to suspend its regular rules in order to discuss it as it was not submitted to the council via committee. The final vote was 9 to 3 against the suspension of the rules and effectively killed the resolution. 

Those that voted against it viewed the resolution as an overreach.

“We just do not believe that’s our job to get involved in the library’s business,” Council member Ennis Fett said to a local news outlet. “We appoint a board. We can not set a precedent of micromanaging the library board, because if we do that, then, we will be micromanaging all boards and commissions that we appoint.” 

Although the council decided not to get involved, the library still has the final decision to make regarding these books. Their meeting to discuss the matter is scheduled for December 5. 

See what others are saying: (Greenville News) (The Post and Courier) (7 News)

Continue Reading