News

Bay Area health officers fast-track regional stay-at-home order

New restrictions will be effective 10 p.m. Sunday in Santa Clara County

Health officers representing six Bay Area jurisdictions, including Santa Clara County, announce plans to implement the state's regional stay-at-home order earlier than planned at a Dec. 4 virtual press conference. Video courtesy Contra Costa Television.

The spread of the COVID-19 virus has reached an alarming rate, prompting Bay Area health officers to implement the state's new regional stay-at-home order earlier rather than wait until local hospitals are near crisis, they said during a press conference on Friday afternoon.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Thursday that all sectors other than retail and essential operations would be closed in regions of the state where less than 15% of intensive care unit beds are available under a new regional stay-at-home order.

Santa Clara County reached that metric on Friday, with 14% ICU bed capacity, Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody said. The average percentage of ICU beds filled with COVID-19 patients has tripled in the last month. Thursday brought a new record of 67 new patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and each day breaks a previous record, she said. (On Friday, the county recorded 46 new COVID-19 patients.)

Health officers from Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Marin counties and the city of Berkeley said they will enact the early order starting Dec. 6, 7 or 8 through Jan. 4 to try to reduce the stress on their hospital resources and staff.

The orders will become effective as follows: Santa Clara, San Francisco and Contra Costa counties, Sunday at 10 p.m.; city of Berkeley and Alameda County, Monday at 12:01 a.m.; and Marin County, Tuesday at noon. San Mateo County did not join the regional health officers in issuing the early order.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

"We are in an especially dangerous period of the COVID-19 epidemic," Contra Costa County Health Officer Dr. Christopher Farnitano said. "December will be the dark COVID winter we feared would come."

He and the other health officers did not think they could wait. The current situation is an emergency, he added.

There is a surge in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in Contra Costa County and across the region, according to Farnitano. "The number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in our county has doubled in just the past couple of weeks, and we are at risk of exceeding our hospital capacity later this month if current trends continue," he said.

"It takes several weeks for new restrictions to slow rising hospitalizations and waiting until only 15% of a region’s ICU beds are available is just too late," San Francisco Health Officer Dr. Tomás Aragon said. "Many heavily impacted parts of our region already have less than 15% of ICU beds available, and the time to act is now." He added that there is no place to transfer patients with nearly three-quarters of all beds filled in the Bay Area.

Aragon said that every person who tests positive infects another one-and-a-half people. For every case they do detect, six to 10 cases go undetected. "This virus is relentless and unforgiving," he said.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Dr. Lisa Hernandez, health officer for the city of Berkeley, urged the public to take the order seriously. People should not travel for the upcoming holidays, nor gather or meet with anyone outside of their own household, even outdoors.

"If you have a social bubble, it is now popped. Do not let this be the last holiday with your family," she said.

The health officers said that they often work collaboratively and provide hospital and ICU beds when hospitals in another county are overwhelmed. They would do the same during the COVID-19 crisis, but they want to make sure they would have enough beds to serve their patients and handle any overload, if necessary.

"We cannot wait until after we have driven off the cliff to pull the emergency brake. We understand that the closures under the state order will have a profound impact on our local businesses. However, if we act quickly, we can both save lives and reduce the amount of time these restrictions have to stay in place, allowing businesses and activities to reopen sooner," Cody said.

Alameda County Health Officer Dr. Nicholas Moss said the rising hospitalization rates across the region threaten not only community members with severe COVID-19, but anyone who may need care because of a heart attack, stroke, accident or other critical health need.

"By acting together now we will have the greatest impact on the surge and save more lives," he said.

San Mateo County officials issued a statement on Friday afternoon supporting the other Bay Area health officials, but stopped short of issuing the restrictions.

"As other Bay Area Health officials today announced that they would impose new local stay-at-home orders, the County of San Mateo remains focused on following the state's existing metrics and process, while reinforcing the public's responsibility to comply with existing safety measures — especially avoiding gatherings — to slow the spread of COVID-19 during the holiday season.

"Accordingly, while the County understands and appreciates the measures taken by the other Bay Area counties, San Mateo will not at this time be issuing a new local stay-at-home order and will continue to work with business and community leaders on adherence to existing guidelines. San Mateo County remains in the purple Tier 1 on the state’s four-tier, color-coded system for restricting and loosening activities," county officials said.

"We know our residents have sacrificed and patience is growing thin, but we need you to know that you have the power to curb the spread and preserve hospital capacity for those who will need care in the coming weeks. We can get through this together if each of us takes action now to social distance, wear face coverings and avoid gatherings," County Manager Michael Callagy said in the statement.

The order follows the state's restrictions under the regional stay-home order. Bars, wineries, personal services, hair salons and barbershops will be closed. Retail will also be limited to 20% of capacity; restaurants will be closed for indoor and outdoor dining but may have takeout and deliveries. Schools that have already opened for in-person instruction and critical infrastructure such as grocery stores and pharmacies will remain open.

As such, Palo Alto Unified elementary schools will continue to serve students on campuses, the district said on Friday, following all guidelines from the Santa Clara County Public Health Department.

Plans to reopen the secondary schools for hybrid instruction in January, however, are officially on pause, meaning middle and high schoolers could approach a full year of remote learning.

"Despite extraordinary preparation efforts, it is now clear that our secondary schools will be prohibited from opening for hybrid instruction," Superintendent Don Austin wrote in a Friday update. "We do not see a viable path for high schools to reopen for hybrid instruction in the second semester. Internally, we are exploring options to create a limited return at the middle school level with a target of March. All plans depend on public health conditions and evolving regulations."

The district is "strongly" discouraging staff and families from recreational and nonessential travel. Students who travel more than 150 miles from the Santa Clara County boundaries are expected to self-quarantine for 14 days when they return, though teachers are not prohibited from returning to work after travel.

Schools may be required to close if certain percentages of staff and students are diagnosed with COVID-19. The district is continuing to post weekly updates of coronavirus cases online. Since August, there have been eight reported positive cases among students and staff.

The sector closures and restrictions on activity under the state's regional stay-at-home order can be found here.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Bay Area health officers fast-track regional stay-at-home order

New restrictions will be effective 10 p.m. Sunday in Santa Clara County

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Fri, Dec 4, 2020, 1:58 pm
Updated: Fri, Dec 4, 2020, 6:06 pm

The spread of the COVID-19 virus has reached an alarming rate, prompting Bay Area health officers to implement the state's new regional stay-at-home order earlier rather than wait until local hospitals are near crisis, they said during a press conference on Friday afternoon.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Thursday that all sectors other than retail and essential operations would be closed in regions of the state where less than 15% of intensive care unit beds are available under a new regional stay-at-home order.

Santa Clara County reached that metric on Friday, with 14% ICU bed capacity, Health Officer Dr. Sara Cody said. The average percentage of ICU beds filled with COVID-19 patients has tripled in the last month. Thursday brought a new record of 67 new patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and each day breaks a previous record, she said. (On Friday, the county recorded 46 new COVID-19 patients.)

Health officers from Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Marin counties and the city of Berkeley said they will enact the early order starting Dec. 6, 7 or 8 through Jan. 4 to try to reduce the stress on their hospital resources and staff.

The orders will become effective as follows: Santa Clara, San Francisco and Contra Costa counties, Sunday at 10 p.m.; city of Berkeley and Alameda County, Monday at 12:01 a.m.; and Marin County, Tuesday at noon. San Mateo County did not join the regional health officers in issuing the early order.

"We are in an especially dangerous period of the COVID-19 epidemic," Contra Costa County Health Officer Dr. Christopher Farnitano said. "December will be the dark COVID winter we feared would come."

He and the other health officers did not think they could wait. The current situation is an emergency, he added.

There is a surge in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in Contra Costa County and across the region, according to Farnitano. "The number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in our county has doubled in just the past couple of weeks, and we are at risk of exceeding our hospital capacity later this month if current trends continue," he said.

"It takes several weeks for new restrictions to slow rising hospitalizations and waiting until only 15% of a region’s ICU beds are available is just too late," San Francisco Health Officer Dr. Tomás Aragon said. "Many heavily impacted parts of our region already have less than 15% of ICU beds available, and the time to act is now." He added that there is no place to transfer patients with nearly three-quarters of all beds filled in the Bay Area.

Aragon said that every person who tests positive infects another one-and-a-half people. For every case they do detect, six to 10 cases go undetected. "This virus is relentless and unforgiving," he said.

Dr. Lisa Hernandez, health officer for the city of Berkeley, urged the public to take the order seriously. People should not travel for the upcoming holidays, nor gather or meet with anyone outside of their own household, even outdoors.

"If you have a social bubble, it is now popped. Do not let this be the last holiday with your family," she said.

The health officers said that they often work collaboratively and provide hospital and ICU beds when hospitals in another county are overwhelmed. They would do the same during the COVID-19 crisis, but they want to make sure they would have enough beds to serve their patients and handle any overload, if necessary.

"We cannot wait until after we have driven off the cliff to pull the emergency brake. We understand that the closures under the state order will have a profound impact on our local businesses. However, if we act quickly, we can both save lives and reduce the amount of time these restrictions have to stay in place, allowing businesses and activities to reopen sooner," Cody said.

Alameda County Health Officer Dr. Nicholas Moss said the rising hospitalization rates across the region threaten not only community members with severe COVID-19, but anyone who may need care because of a heart attack, stroke, accident or other critical health need.

"By acting together now we will have the greatest impact on the surge and save more lives," he said.

San Mateo County officials issued a statement on Friday afternoon supporting the other Bay Area health officials, but stopped short of issuing the restrictions.

"As other Bay Area Health officials today announced that they would impose new local stay-at-home orders, the County of San Mateo remains focused on following the state's existing metrics and process, while reinforcing the public's responsibility to comply with existing safety measures — especially avoiding gatherings — to slow the spread of COVID-19 during the holiday season.

"Accordingly, while the County understands and appreciates the measures taken by the other Bay Area counties, San Mateo will not at this time be issuing a new local stay-at-home order and will continue to work with business and community leaders on adherence to existing guidelines. San Mateo County remains in the purple Tier 1 on the state’s four-tier, color-coded system for restricting and loosening activities," county officials said.

"We know our residents have sacrificed and patience is growing thin, but we need you to know that you have the power to curb the spread and preserve hospital capacity for those who will need care in the coming weeks. We can get through this together if each of us takes action now to social distance, wear face coverings and avoid gatherings," County Manager Michael Callagy said in the statement.

The order follows the state's restrictions under the regional stay-home order. Bars, wineries, personal services, hair salons and barbershops will be closed. Retail will also be limited to 20% of capacity; restaurants will be closed for indoor and outdoor dining but may have takeout and deliveries. Schools that have already opened for in-person instruction and critical infrastructure such as grocery stores and pharmacies will remain open.

As such, Palo Alto Unified elementary schools will continue to serve students on campuses, the district said on Friday, following all guidelines from the Santa Clara County Public Health Department.

Plans to reopen the secondary schools for hybrid instruction in January, however, are officially on pause, meaning middle and high schoolers could approach a full year of remote learning.

"Despite extraordinary preparation efforts, it is now clear that our secondary schools will be prohibited from opening for hybrid instruction," Superintendent Don Austin wrote in a Friday update. "We do not see a viable path for high schools to reopen for hybrid instruction in the second semester. Internally, we are exploring options to create a limited return at the middle school level with a target of March. All plans depend on public health conditions and evolving regulations."

The district is "strongly" discouraging staff and families from recreational and nonessential travel. Students who travel more than 150 miles from the Santa Clara County boundaries are expected to self-quarantine for 14 days when they return, though teachers are not prohibited from returning to work after travel.

Schools may be required to close if certain percentages of staff and students are diagnosed with COVID-19. The district is continuing to post weekly updates of coronavirus cases online. Since August, there have been eight reported positive cases among students and staff.

The sector closures and restrictions on activity under the state's regional stay-at-home order can be found here.

Comments

John
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 4, 2020 at 2:59 pm
John, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 2:59 pm
91 people like this

Unconstitutional. There is precedent for quarantining infected people, none for locking down healthy ones. I will not comply.


chris
Registered user
University South
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:09 pm
chris, University South
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:09 pm
75 people like this

John,

Which part of the order are you not going to comply with?

Lots of people are infected but without symptoms. Which Article of the Constitution do you think this order violates? Who is going to pay your attorney fees?


Kevin
Registered user
Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:19 pm
Kevin, Greendell/Walnut Grove
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:19 pm
10 people like this

John should cite his sources for that claim.


TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:42 pm
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:42 pm
69 people like this

Oh well, I guess it's back to eating, shopping, and getting haircuts in Menlo Park. Which actually isn't all that bad. I'm starting to like it there more than Palo Alto. [Portion removed.]


John
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:44 pm
John, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:44 pm
41 people like this

It falls under the 1st amendment to the BofR, specifically peaceable assembly. You might also look under Article IV in the US Constitution regarding immunities. Both documents the cops have sworn to uphold. You’ll find very little support for authoritarian (and French laundry attending) Newsome among the men with guns he needs to enforce his unlawful order.


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:54 pm
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:54 pm
65 people like this

>"...it's back to eating, shopping, and getting haircuts in Menlo Park. Which actually isn't all that bad. I'm starting to like it there more than Palo Alto."

^ Concurring...less political too.


Norman Beamer
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:54 pm
Norman Beamer, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:54 pm
43 people like this

Rights don't enter into it. It's responsibilities as a citizen.


TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:57 pm
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 3:57 pm
23 people like this

John, it's more of a due process issue (5th and 14th Amendments), but there's very little jurisprudence on quarantines at the county level of non-infected people . But I'm sure there will be before this is over, and if the ACLU would be so kind as to take this up, we know the Palo Alto City Counsel at least would fold in a heartbeat!


Tom from Midtown
Registered user
Midtown
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:12 pm
Tom from Midtown, Midtown
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:12 pm
62 people like this

"There is precedent for quarantining infected people, none for locking down healthy ones."

Nonsense. That's exactly what a curfew does. Not to mention the fact that being able to leave your home to carry out essential tasks, exercise outdoors, attend worship services, do "political expression", even go shopping (subject to the 20% capacity rule) in my opinion hardly constitutes a "lock down".

As for the first amendment right to peaceful assembly, as far as I'm concerned it's all a matter of limits. My right to freedom of speech does not let me yell "fire" in a crowded theater. My right to freedom of religion does not allow me to put nonbelievers to the stake. The reason is that each of us has more fundamental rights, namely, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At the point where your peaceful assembly becomes a threat to someone else's life, your right to that assembly meets its limits. Since you don't know if you are asymptomatically expressing a potentially lethal virus, neither you nor anyone around you (e.g., in that assembly) can know whether you are actively threatening their life and liberty and pursuit of happiness. So the community, through its elected leaders (whatever you think of Newsom, he was actually elected) may lawfully choose to restrict your and my and everyone else's right to peaceably assemble.


Name hidden
Downtown North

Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:13 pm
Name hidden, Downtown North

Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:13 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


John
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:35 pm
John, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:35 pm
9 people like this

Tom, what makes you think GENERAL curfews are Constitutional? Other than under martial law, of course.

“At the point where your peaceful assembly becomes a threat (0.6%?) to someone else's life, your right to that assembly meets its limits.” Golly I can think of kinds of infringements to justify using the whisper of “safety.” Robespierre’s got nothing on you folks!


Chris
Registered user
University South
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:41 pm
Chris, University South
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:41 pm
7 people like this

Since these are state rule based on regions, San Mateo County will fall under their purview in a short time.


John Sack
Registered user
Barron Park
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:41 pm
John Sack, Barron Park
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 4:41 pm
9 people like this

The caustic comments about Palo Alto vs. Menlo Park are unfair in this particular case. These are county-level actions, and Palo Alto is on one county and Menlo Park is in another.

Not to say you shouldn't lawfully shop etc. in Menlo Park.


YP
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 4, 2020 at 5:18 pm
YP, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 5:18 pm
70 people like this

I blame Trump!! Trump !!

Oh no wait a minute, after 9 months of Covid you would think the liberal citizens of California (including our politicians - do you hear me Breed, Licarno, Newsome) would adhere to all the restrictions already in place to stop the spread. Guess not....

Don't blame Trump, look in the mirror.


Kevin
Registered user
Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Dec 4, 2020 at 5:28 pm
Kevin, Greendell/Walnut Grove
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 5:28 pm
13 people like this

Thus far, the Supreme Court have declined to rule on the constitutionality of curfews.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 4, 2020 at 5:40 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 5:40 pm
35 people like this

Darwin will rule but sadly those who elect not to follow professional health guidance will take others with them if they get sick and need care.


Again?
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 4, 2020 at 6:47 pm
Again?, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 6:47 pm
11 people like this

They should focus and help the problem areas likes: homeless shelters, nursing homes, high density living.... Locking everyone up won’t solve the problem fast enough.


Angry and Frustrated
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 4, 2020 at 7:08 pm
Angry and Frustrated, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 7:08 pm
47 people like this

This is too much. While I agree that some activities need to be curtailed, I think frankly that the County Health Directors overemphasize lock downs and press conferences as the primary tools at their disposal. Rather than harm the economy further and severely restrict people with the related mental health effects, they should also think about better ways to deal with this problem.

I have some advice for Sarah Cody.

1) Improve Enforcement - Every weekend I see literally hundreds of mostly hispanic adults playing in organized soccer games at Mayfield and El Camino Parks. Neither the players, the refs nor the spectators (densely packed on the sidelines) are masked. These are not games where permits have been issued - these are high organized informal leagues. Every day when I walk and drive around Palo Alto I see most every construction site with workers without masks. At best, they hang around their necks. The New Parking Garage on California Avenue is one exception. In the past three weeks, I have seen one neighbor have their roof replaced by [very well known roofing company] with most all workers without masks, and another have the interior of their home repainted by [well known Palo Alto painting contractor] while not wearing masks. The policy should be simple - a roving Compliance officer covers a city - one incident gets a small fine and warning, the second gets your business shut down for 20 days. Instead of issuing fines and citations for improper paperwork, which was their Thanksgiving weekend strategy, they should impose restrictions and pain on people/companies that demonstrate bad behavior. Stop the spread, not penalize everyone indiscriminately.

2) Improve Testing - This is still a LONG WAY from where it should be. It takes 4+ days to get an appointment at the County of Santa Clara Free Sites, and then another 3 days to get an answer. That could mean up to 7 days where you are exposed once you feel the need to get tested. We should have same day testing, with next day answers for FREE for everyone.

3) Improve Contact Tracing - A person I know recently contracted COVID who works in my company. I heard nothing from Santa Clara County about possible exposure. The good news is we had no re-transmission (this occurred 17 days ago), but we got no help from the County - do they even have Contact Tracers?

4) Expand Hospital/ICU Capacity - California and the Bay Area has for a very long time had a major problem with inadequate hospital and ICU capacity relative to other major cities. This is not news to people in Public Health - a very well understood problem. We are not going to build hospitals in 9 days as they did in China, but we can convert existing facilities/closed facilities to medical facilities to offload care to other places where it could open up more space for COVID regular and ICU care. This ICU capacity problem is not a new problem that we suddenly realized yesterday, so to blame these new shutdowns on that metric is an indictment just as much of our public health officials as our behavior.

5) Expedite the vaccine - Obviously a priority, and I have nothing to comment positively or negatively on how well we are doing with this. I just hope they are really working this hard - not just the allocation issue but the total envelope of vaccines that we get ASAP.

Unfortunately the way this works is in the coming days they will increase and tighten the restrictions - they will go after outdoor dining, hair salons, gyms, playgrounds, landscapers and dog groomers first, but then they will once again close parks, open space, and more. The schools will take this as an open invitation to close down to in-person learning for the rest of the year, and take all youth sports and extracurricular activities out with it as well.

Some of this is needed, but frankly most everyone in our community is generally supportive - I see the overwhelming majority (99%) of people in stores and in public wearing masks. To jump into what seems to be another indiscriminate, indefinite lockdown without really hitting on all these other cylinders will make people very cynical, reduce compliance at a much faster rate, and create public unrest that is frankly not good for anyone in light of our political turmoil.

In the last week they have bounced from a 30 day All Night Curfew in Santa Clara to a ban on pro, college and youth sports, to this. It just feels like it is highly disjointed and disorganized.


Chris
Registered user
University South
on Dec 4, 2020 at 7:16 pm
Chris, University South
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 7:16 pm
17 people like this

Angry and Again,

It is too late to be subtle. The big hammer is needed. The overflow is only days away.


Chris
Registered user
University South
on Dec 4, 2020 at 7:19 pm
Chris, University South
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 7:19 pm
10 people like this

Starting Tuesday, you can drive down University, Ramona, and California again.


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 4, 2020 at 8:14 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 8:14 pm
25 people like this

@ Angry
One problem is “they” (government) will undoubtedly again airlift in severely ill persons to be placed in Stanford Hospital. This will “raise” our rate.
I understood our high hospitalization rate earlier was owing to ill farmworkers on the border (El Centro - see CA map) being brought up here, as LA and San Diego hospitals declined to treat them (for free, of course = taxpayer expense).
It may indeed become quite a risk to any of us who need Stanford Hospital.
As always, I thank all medical professionals for their outstanding work in this challenging pandemic.
Contrast them with Gavin Newsom (read history of behavior) and SF Mayor London Breed (read history of behavior and associates). This goes waaay past The French Laundry scandals. We have poor quality elected givernment officials, which is unfortunate.
I find Newsom’s speeches to be incoherent.


Jeremy E.
Registered user
Midtown
on Dec 4, 2020 at 8:22 pm
Jeremy E., Midtown
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 8:22 pm
3 people like this

Is retail capacity under the new order 20% or 10% for Santa Clara County? I thought the county's current order is 10% for retail, 25% for grocery stores and pharmacies, so are they keeping that under the new order or changing it?


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 4, 2020 at 8:31 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 8:31 pm
15 people like this

@ Jeremy, I agree - I thought non-essential retail had moved to 10%...while I read this afternoon it’s now at 20%. I feel sorry for local independent retailers and services trying to keep up with this. Meanwhile, the big fish get enriched.


Just Sayin'
Registered user
Midtown
on Dec 4, 2020 at 9:07 pm
Just Sayin', Midtown
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 9:07 pm
7 people like this

@TimR and @Tom (Adobe Meadow). Just make sure you or your family memebers don't need medical help during the surge. "Alameda County Health Officer Dr. Nicholas Moss said the rising hospitalization rates across the region threaten not only community members with severe COVID-19, but anyone who may need care because of a heart attack, stroke, accident or other critical health need."
@Angry - I hear you but re your #4 comment, I thought California is also concerned about having enough medical professionals to deal with an overwhelming number of patients. In the spring they hired medical professionals from other states but with the virus currently surging throughout the country, we can't count on that now.


Jane
Registered user
Ventura
on Dec 4, 2020 at 9:29 pm
Jane, Ventura
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 9:29 pm
42 people like this

This is absurd and I will not be making any changes in plans to comply, sorry. 10 months in and a bunch of unelected officials still have carte blanche to impose arbitrary restrictions based on a single issue.
Unacceptable.



Jeremy E.
Registered user
Midtown
on Dec 4, 2020 at 10:27 pm
Jeremy E., Midtown
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 10:27 pm
21 people like this

I understand the reasons for the restrictions, but after almost nine months of them, I'm infuriated that governments continue to issue them without accompanying orders or legislation to mitigate the economic devastation they cause. It feels as if politicians at all levels--federal, state, and local--got together in April and decided, "Since we can't agree on how to respond to the pandemic, let's all become libertarians and let our constiuents fend for themselves. Good luck, Americans! If you and your businesses survive the next year, we'll give you a vaccination--maybe!"


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 4, 2020 at 11:02 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 11:02 pm
9 people like this

What is amazing is that they settled for “flattening” the curve?

We should have continued until the curve hit ZERO in the beginning.

But “flattening” the curve was the only acceptable choice for the politicians and the businesses.

Not seeking to make the virus extinct.


Jeremy E.
Registered user
Midtown
on Dec 4, 2020 at 11:56 pm
Jeremy E., Midtown
Registered user
on Dec 4, 2020 at 11:56 pm
3 people like this

The state's stay-at-home order says "all retailers may operate indoors at no more than 20% capacity." Since the county already has an order in place mandating 10% capacity for most retailers, I suspect the 10% requirement will be in effect come Sunday night, since it's less than the state's maximum.


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2020 at 7:07 am
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 7:07 am
45 people like this

>"We have poor quality elected givernment officials, which is unfortunate....I find Newsom’s speeches to be incoherent."

^ Given his 'two sets of rules' mindset/practice & lack of any contriteness when exposed, a projected lack of seriousness when addressing these public health related issues, + his arrogance & personality in general...I find Governor Newsom to be a prime example of what you have referred to as a poor quality' elected government official.


Elementary Parent
Registered user
Palo Verde School
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:36 am
Elementary Parent , Palo Verde School
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:36 am
17 people like this

This seems very heavy-handed especially shutting down playgrounds. I get it that numbers are going up but I can't understand why capacity cannot be increased in our resource-rich bay area unless there are severe staffing shortages and burnout among medical professionals. If the latter then it has to be presented as so and not as a potential bed shortage issue. Besides, wasn't there additional bed capacity set up in downtown San Jose to handle any surges at the start of this crisis? Whatever happened to that? Something is not adding up here. Most of us who have been doing the right thing or those who are on the frontlines, small businesses, hair cutting salons, restaurants should not have to be penalized for the actions of those who may have gotten infected because they may not have followed protocols. Also, what is the point of the added curfew on top of the shelter in place order?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:46 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:46 am
19 people like this

"Most of us who have been doing the right thing"

The data clearly shows that not enough of us have been doing the "right thing" and the price of our collective failure is more infections and more deaths.

There are many countries that have done much better and the reason is better compliance with infection control behavior and much more extensive testing and contact tracing.

We have collectively allowed the situation to get so far out of control that truly draconian measures are the only way to prevent a collapse of our health care system ala Italy in the Spring.


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:56 am
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:56 am
37 people like this

Does the SC County 'non-essential' SIP mandate also include any restrictions on outdoor dog walking between certain hours?

If so, some folks may need to make a quick run to Home Depot/Lowes to procure materials for a doghouse with indoor plumbing facilities.

Or train Fido to use the bidet.


MVresident2003
Mountain View

Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:59 am
Name hidden, Mountain View

Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:59 am

Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.


TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 5, 2020 at 3:18 pm
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 3:18 pm
10 people like this

Dr. Cody said on Friday that SCC's available ICU capacity dropped below the 15% threshold. Yet the dashboard says it was at 17% for Friday. [Portion removed.]


ICU capacity
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Dec 5, 2020 at 3:46 pm
ICU capacity, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 3:46 pm
3 people like this

When I look at the ICU dashboard for Friday I see
47 beds available (blue)
83 beds with covid patients (orange)
204 beds with other hospital patients (gray)

That is 16.4% availability. You might check that you are looking at the right thing. On Thursday it was 15.9%. On Tuesday it was 14.8%.


ICU capacity
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Dec 5, 2020 at 4:17 pm
ICU capacity, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 4:17 pm
26 people like this

By the way, these dashboards do not include surge capacity.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 5, 2020 at 4:22 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 4:22 pm
4 people like this

The State mandate requires the counties to impose these restrictions when capacity falls below 15% BUT the State requirements do not prohibit the counties from acting more stringently at higher ICU capacity levels.


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2020 at 4:44 pm
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 4:44 pm
49 people like this

>"I blame Trump!! Trump!!"

^ Despite ongoing national debate on how the pandemic should best be handled, any blame for the global pandemic should be directed towards it's origins.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2020 at 6:47 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 6:47 pm
1 person likes this

IF the ICU's stay as short as they are, the REGIONAL shutdowns will continue.

The from this website says: (Web Link reads:

"SAHO ICU bed % available as of December 5, 2020 for the 5 regions:

For regions under 15%, the Regional Stay Home Order goes into effect Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 11:59 PM.

The current 7 day average has Santa Clara at 17% seen here (Web Link).

But that is 7 days delayed, obviously the Department of Health knows we are already below 15%, there were 359 available beds on Thursday, and only 344 beds on Friday. 15 NEW patients from Thursday to Friday. 344 available beds where there were 319 used for COVID patients and 1690 beds used for the rest. The total bed count is 344+319+1690= 2343. 344/2343 is 14.68%. Now I understand we are part of a Region, but Santa Clara County is below the 15% threshold NOW

On Sunday November 15 we had 608 available beds. That would have been 25% free ICU beds. Boy are we going in the WRONG direction.


TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:37 pm
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 8:37 pm
13 people like this

Peter Carpenter, "The data clearly shows that not enough of us have been doing the "right thing" and the price of our collective failure is more infections and more deaths."

Whom do you mean by "we?" Since this is the "Palo Alto Weekly," I will assume you mean residents of Palo Alto. And we have done a stellar job, with a positive test rate of 0.8 for the most recent period reported on the Dashboard (Nov 1 - 21). SJ, on the other hand, has a 5.4 postive test rate! The job "we've" done is actually something be pretty proud of, but for a reward, we get hammered. Maybe it's not possible to regulate down to the city level, but that doesn't mean you have to wrongfully blame your fellow residents. It's not our fault the rest of the county can't do a better job.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:29 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:29 pm
17 people like this

"Since this is the "Palo Alto Weekly," I will assume you mean residents of Palo Alto."


Wrong. The Palo Alto Weekly serves a much larger area including East Palo Alto in San Mateo County.

And the virus does not see or respect local governmental boundaries.

We are all in this together and no family, no individual block, no individual neighborhood is an island.


Alvin
Registered user
Professorville
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:31 pm
Alvin, Professorville
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 9:31 pm
4 people like this

[Post removed.]


Jeremy E.
Registered user
Midtown
on Dec 5, 2020 at 10:40 pm
Jeremy E., Midtown
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2020 at 10:40 pm
2 people like this

Here's the answer to our questions about retail capacity: the County put out a statement yesterday that they would adjust capacity limits in retail and other public spaces to match the State's guidelines, but leave the rest of last week's order in place.

How confusing.

Web Link

"With the implementation of the new State Order, the Health Officer will be adjusting the capacity restrictions on retail and other spaces open to the public to align with the capacity restrictions under the State’s Regional Stay at Home Order, which caps capacity in retail environments at 20%. All other restrictions announced by Santa Clara County last week remain in effect, including the mandatory 14-day quarantine for travelers who are coming from a point of origin greater than 150 miles from the county’s borders."


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 7:53 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 7:53 am
12 people like this

Our public health professionals are simply applying increasingly restrictive rules because we, as a collective, are not obeying the simpler rules regarding masks, social distancing, and avoiding congregant settings - as is evidenced by the rising infection rates.

Other democratic countries have done much better than has the US primarily because we, as a collective, refuse to follow common sense procedures. The US has the 12th highest infection rate in the world out of 218 countries being monitored. Our infection rate is almost twice that of the UK, three times that of Denmark and Ireland, four times that of Canada, thirty five times that of Japan and Australia and ONE HUNDRED times that of New Zealand.

This is the same virus in all of these countries - the only difference is the behavior of the citizens of these nations.

Given our collective poor adherence to simple public health rules we now have a third wave of horrible proportions (more people dying every day than in the World Trade Center attack or in ten airliners crashing every day) and the public health professionals have NO choice but to require more draconian restrictions.


JR McDugan
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:54 am
JR McDugan, Palo Verde
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:54 am
2 people like this

Existing rules and regulations are not being followed, stricter rules and regulations will predictably not be followed. A different approach is necessary, one that does involve the threat of fines, imprisonment or structural violence.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:01 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:01 am
13 people like this

"stricter rules and regulations will predictably not be followed."

Then Darwin will prevail with the disastrous side effect of taking many innocent health professionals and at risk people along with those who refuse to comply.


ICU capacity
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:40 am
ICU capacity, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:40 am
6 people like this

Tim says: "It's not our fault the rest of the county can't do a better job."

I don't think we should be playing a blame game. There are 47 free ICU beds in a county of about 2 million people. It's bad all around.

But if you want to ask the question, whose fault is it, think about these questions. Are there more essential workers in San Jose? Denser living conditions? People with fewer resources who have to share more, take transit, etc? People with worse health care, poorer diets, and more co-morbidities? If so, is it their fault for being less well off and trying to make things work?

IMO some empathy is in order.

BTW people should look at the hospital dashboard Web Link In particular, look at the second graph, titled "Hospital Capacity Data". Choose the "ICU Beds" version. Look at how the orange bars (COVID patients in ICU) are growing, while the blue bars (available ICU beds) is shrinking. That is the problem in a simple visual.


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 10:03 am
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 10:03 am
15 people like this

[Post removed.]


Jennifer
Registered user
another community
on Dec 6, 2020 at 10:08 am
Jennifer, another community
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 10:08 am
1 person likes this

I hope it doesn't get to the point where all we're allowed to do is go to the store, the hospital or pump gas -- not that we're driving anywhere.


TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 6, 2020 at 11:52 am
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 11:52 am
6 people like this

Peter Carpenter, "Other democratic countries have done much better..."

Yes, different countries have different cultures. Is this news to you or something? You'd have to pretty pretty ignorant to think all countries would handle this exactly the same.

This is also explains why the US and a couple other Western countries are doing a very good job coming up with a vaccine, while most are doing a horrible job. Many are so incompetent in scientific research, they don't have a single vaccine candidate! In the end, the US approach to this pandemic will save many more hundreds of millions of lives globally than, say, New Zealand's culture will.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:11 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:11 pm
7 people like this

"Yes, different countries have different cultures. Is this news to you or something? You'd have to pretty pretty ignorant to think all countries would handle this exactly the same."

Not news to me at all.

The shame is that we aren't smart enough to learn from other countries.

"This is also explains why the US and a couple other Western countries are doing a very good job coming up with a vaccine,"

The two leading vaccines were developed in Germany and the UK - NOT in the US.

"In the end, the US approach to this pandemic will save many more hundreds of millions of lives globally than, say, New Zealand's culture will."

So far the US is a distant third when it comes to vaccine development.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:21 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:21 pm
3 people like this

And the third most further advanced vaccine was developed in the UK.

No US developed vaccine has completed Phase 3 trials.

The US is hardly saving itself much less the world.




Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:25 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:25 pm
3 people like this

Correction:

The Moderna vaccine was developed in the US.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:46 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 12:46 pm
17 people like this

In response to John from Adobe-Meadow you wrote:

“It falls under the 1st amendment to the BofR, specifically peaceable assembly.”

But peaceful assembly under the constitution is NOT commerce. You can look at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School (Web Link) and it clearly shows a private business activity is NOT covered by the First Amendment, because that peaceful assembly is for POLITICAL DISCOURSE and PETITION. You surely should have known that. Now Commercial Speech is protected. Meaning your advertisements are protected, and lobbying for laws, but that is it. You wrote:

“You might also look under Article IV in the US Constitution regarding immunities.”

What specifically under Article IV says that peaceful assembly is commercial activity? It might make it so a contract in one state establishes that the same parties are bound in other states, but that is it also. You didn’t document that well either. So when you wrote:

“Both documents the cops have sworn to uphold.”

They will uphold it, it is just that you are making a very erroneous argument here. THe police have the duty to enforce any laws that are constitutional and serve the public safety. You wrote:

“You’ll find very little support for authoritarian (and French laundry attending) Newsome among the men with guns he needs to enforce his unlawful order.”

You are not a judge, I will wait till the courts make that determination.


Lynne Henderson
Registered user
another community
on Dec 6, 2020 at 1:11 pm
Lynne Henderson, another community
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 1:11 pm
12 people like this

I find the political bickering/"blame game" on this thread disheartening. This whole pandemic has been consumed by such bickering, and although I empathize with those who posted they simply would ignore the strict mandates (and I admit they are confusing), I empathize far more with people who live alone and don't have a "household" with whom they can associate. On *that* "rule", I am all for breaking it in the name of the human connection and emotional health.


TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 6, 2020 at 1:12 pm
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 1:12 pm
4 people like this

Peter, do you not know what "a couple other Western countries" means? I didn't say it was only the US developing vaccines. And based on what I've been reading over these past months, if I had to pick one candidate that will have the greatest global impact, I think it'll be Johnson and Johnson's. It's only one dose (although they have also started to test a two-dose regimen), and can be stored at temperatures above freezing. They've also begun production with a plan to produce 1 billion doses by the end of 2021, and to be ready to go when/if it's approved. But speaking of the UK, they have a higher COVID-19 mortality rate that the US*, so according to you they're another country that hasn't "learned" from other countries. And France's rate is higher than the US's, too, so they're another one to add to your naughty list.

* Web Link


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 1:17 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 1:17 pm
5 people like this

US Mortality rate is 867 per million
UK rate is 897
France is 842

Web Link

And the US infection rates are much higher than the UK's or France's


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 2:59 pm
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 2:59 pm
53 people like this

>"So far the US is a distant third when it comes to vaccine development."

^ And the U.S. will will probably remain a distant third globally when it comes to the public lining up to get both shots after hearing of or enduring the reported after effects.

Many African Americans will be declining shots based on their predecessor's previous experiences with U.S. sponsored experimental vaccines & intentional infections.

And the same will probably apply to evangelicals, free assembly advocates & right-wing proponents who are distrustful of the scientific community.

After health care professionals & first responders receive the initial round of vaccinations, to instill public confidence it may prove helpful if Gavin 'French Laundry' Newsom, Nancy 'Hair Care' Pelosi, Sheila 'I Like Pasta' Keull & Sam 'It's Just A Small Dinner Gathering' Liccardo are the next in line for the first round of vaccinations...an excellent photo op & they can report back later if there are any adverse effects...plus they will now be free to roam about while pursuing their dining & cosmetic options.

The initial Covid-19 innoculation distribution might also apply to all of the CNN anchors & correspondents promoting the vaccine along with the 78 year-old president-elect as well.

The aforementioned can all get back to us after their second round of innoculations as countless Americans will be watching cautiously...as will Big Pharma & their attorneys.





Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 3:06 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 3:06 pm
4 people like this


Here is the current data for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines:
"Most people will escape “severe” side effects, defined as those that prevent daily activity. Fewer than 2% of recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines developed severe fevers of 39°C to 40°C. But if the companies win regulatory approvals, they're aiming to supply vaccine to 35 million people worldwide by the end of December. If 2% experienced severe fever, that would be 700,000 people.

Other transient side effects would likely affect even more people. The independent board that conducted the interim analysis of Moderna's huge trial found that severe side effects included fatigue in 9.7% of participants, muscle pain in 8.9%, joint pain in 5.2%, and headache in 4.5%. In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, the numbers were lower: Severe side effects included fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2%)."

I would gladly trade any of those side effects for the very high protections from Covid 19 that these vaccines have proven to provide.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 3:55 pm
45 people like this

Peter,

Just understand that there are so many things not being even considered here. The 2 Months exposure is VERY short term. Pfizers vaccine is an mRNA drug, thus it changes the way proteins are made in the cells. That can have significant impact on so many other areas not yet tested. In fact mRNA has only been used for autoimmune disease and cancer, both of which are not even similar to COVID.

For example Thalidomide

The thing that is scary is that it took 60 years to find out how Thalidomide caused the damage it was found in this article.

Web Link

Specifically:

"Building on years of previous research, the researchers found that thalidomide acts by promoting the degradation of AN UNEXPECTEDLY WIDE RANGE OF TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS – cell proteins that help switch genes on or off – including one called SALL4. The result is the complete removal of SALL4 from cells."

mRNA is a TRANSCRIPTOR isn’t it?

Can the COVID vaccines be proven to NOT disrupt other proteins?

We need to know this before using it.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:01 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:01 pm
6 people like this

Goldy - We each have our own risk preferences. Your risk preferences are certainly different than mine

At my age I am little concerned with unknown long term side effects.

I would take a new but carefully tested vaccine if it protects me from Covid.

.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:18 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:18 pm
52 people like this

Peter,

You do have that choice, but the FDA cannot ignore that risk.

The Thalidomide disaster took place over a short time here is some info about it (Web Link). Fortunately, the FDA blocked it from use in the U.S.

"In the U.S., the FDA refused approval to market thalidomide, SAYING FURTHER STUDIES WERE NEEDED. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in U.S. patients. The refusal was largely due to pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey WHO WITHSTOOD PRESSURE FROM THE RICHARDSON-MERRELL PHARMACEUTICALS CO. She subsequently was given a distinguished service award by President John F. Kennedy.[2] Although thalidomide was not approved for sale in the United States at the time, OVER 2.5 MILLION TABLETS HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO OVER 1,000 PHYSICIANS DURING A CLINICAL TESTING PROGRAMME. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT NEARLY 20,000 PATIENTS, SEVERAL HUNDRED OF WHOM WERE PREGNANT WOMEN, WERE GIVEN THE DRUG TO HELP ALLEVIATE MORNING SICKNESS OR AS A SEDATIVE, AND AT LEAST 17 CHILDREN WERE CONSEQUENTLY BORN IN THE UNITED STATES WITH THALIDOMIDE-ASSOCIATED DEFORMITIES.[41][42] While pregnant, children's television host Sherri Finkbine took an over-the-counter sedative her husband had purchased in Europe.[43] When she learned that thalidomide was causing fetal deformities she wanted to abort her pregnancy, but the laws of Arizona allowed abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. Finkbine traveled to Sweden to have the abortion. Thalidomide was found to have deformed the fetus.[41]

For denying the application despite the pressure from Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co., Kelsey eventually received the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service at a 1962 ceremony with President John F. Kennedy. In September 2010, the FDA honored Kelsey with the first Kelsey award, given annually to an FDA staff member. This came 50 years after Kelsey, then a new medical officer at the agency, first reviewed the application from the William S. Merrell Pharmaceuticals Company of Cincinnati.[44]

Cardiologist Helen B. Taussig learned of the damaging effects of the drug thalidomide on newborns and in 1967, testified before Congress on this matter after a trip to Germany where she worked with infants with phocomelia (severe limb deformities). AS A RESULT OF HER EFFORTS, THALIDOMIDE WAS BANNED IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE.[45]”

We cannot allow desperation from causing another potential disaster. This Vaccine will eventually be used in 330,000,000 people. I just think we need to complete our studies before taking that kind of risk.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:23 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:23 pm
4 people like this

"You do have that choice, but the FDA cannot ignore that risk."

There are lots of approved drugs that have known side effects and it is up to the individual and their doctor to evaluate those risks vs the benefits of the drug.

With regard to unknown side effects - after tens of thousands have received these vaccines in Phase 3 trials I will accept any such risks. You may decide otherwise.



[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:37 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:37 pm
5 people like this

Peter,

The reason why your logic doesn't make sense is this.

Say the vaccine does have as much as only a 4% chance of causing birth defects on a child and they survive.

Let's say we have a little at 80 million women in the country having children get the vaccine.

We will result in at least 3,200,000 potential disabled children.

Lets say that the average cost of a healthy child to get to 18 is $240,000.

That means the public cost will come to about $768,000,000,000. A Disabled child will be entitled to disability insurances and health care. WE CANNOT AFOFFORD THAT AND YOUK NOW IT.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:46 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 4:46 pm
4 people like this

Note that these vaccines will be given an Emergency Use Authorization which is a clear warning that there are unknowns.

You and your doctor get to decide if the known and unknown risks are worth the benefit.

As an 80 year old male I have zero concerns about any teratogenic side effects.

You may decide otherwise depending on your risk profile and risk preferences.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 5:21 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 5:21 pm
2 people like this

Here is an example of an approved drug with known teratogenic side effects and the related Black Box warning:

"CONTRAINDICATIONS AND WARNINGS

Accutane must not be used by female patients who are or may become pregnant. There is an extremely high risk that severe birth defects will result if pregnancy occurs while taking Accutane in any amount, even for short periods of time. Potentially any fetus exposed during pregnancy can be affected. There are no accurate means of determining whether an exposed fetus has been affected."

This drug poses no such risks to males or to women who do not intend to get pregnant. Again it is a personal choice to take a prescription drug and millions have taken this drug with great benefit.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 6:28 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 6:28 pm
50 people like this

Peter,

Those warnings only occur when there is "known" side effects.

Emergency approval does not provide those warnings WHERE there hasn't been any detected yet. Given that only 2 months have passed and no test subjects have been pregnant yet.

In effect they are giving a drug/vaccine with no proven safety YET.

You are assuming too much here. Will the people be told and are they going to be forced to sign a waiver for future complications and required to be vaccinated in order to return to work? If that is not coercion and involuntary experimentation, I don't know what is.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 6:56 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 6:56 pm
6 people like this

"Emergency approval does not provide those warnings WHERE there hasn't been any detected yet."

By definition you cannot warn of undetected side effects.

Ten times as many people were in each of the Phase 3 vaccine trials than are ever in a Phase 3 drug trial.

And those trials began in April and July, not two months ago.

And every month going forward millions of more people will be vaccinated.

If you are not in a high risk group you probably won't be eligible to receive the vaccine until April or May by which time over 200 million people will have been vaccinated.

If you want perfect information you will have to wait a very, very long time.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:25 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:25 pm
9 people like this

Peter,

They KNEW they were volunteers in those tests. They WERE told that they had no guaranty of safety of ANY kind, remember? It is called informed CONSENT.

BUT.

Once Medical Professionals are TOLD to take the vaccine after the EMERGENCY approval in order to do their work, it becomes INVOLUNTARY. They are also being TOLD that it is SAFE, where there is NO EVIDENCE to prove that YET.

Given that you are making "HEALTHY" people take something that could do them harm, and you are admitting it can, that is a violation of the oath to "DO NO HARM" right?

Yes, I expect a high assurance of safety given that it is being delivered to otherwise healthy people.

IF WE DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE BEGINNING, MASKING, SOCIAL DISTANCING, AND SOCIAL INTERACTION CONTROL WE WOULD NOT BE HERE.

But too many people simply said it is PATRIOTIC to NOT wear a mask, NOT social distance, and PARTICIPATE in social events that were WELL KNOWN to become super-spreader events.

Hold those people accountable, hold the people who gambled with public safety accountable, but the researchers cannot accelerate time and claim in any way long term safety, and YOU know it.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:34 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:34 pm
2 people like this

Goldy - Don't take the vaccine, that is your choice. Of course then you will remain susceptible to Covid and may be denied access to places like airplanes where you might endanger others. Your choice.

As more and more people die from Covid more and more people will clamor for the vaccine - that is their choice.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:45 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:45 pm
48 people like this

Peter Carpenter,

WOW, it is interesting that you don't hold the REAL people that got us in this place accountable.

Instead you attack me for bringing up the reality here.

As soon as we have a proven vaccine, I want it ASAP. There are many in the works, why do we HAVE to take the one with an unsafe long term situation. mRNA vaccines are not yet proven to work on viruses, they work on cancers and autoimmune disease. This is a big experiment on a large scale.

Perhaps you are a Pfizer investor or have friends that are?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:55 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 8:55 pm
2 people like this

Goldy - I am not attacking you. I am just giving you my opinion which differs from yours.

No, I am not a Pfizer investor.

The people who got us into this place are the people who refused to wear masks, didn't socially distance and engaged in congregant behavior. Now we all pay the price. Poor leadership encouraged that behavior but each individual freely chose not to take these basic preventative measures.

" mRNA vaccines are not yet proven to work on viruses," Wrong - The clinical trials show that they DO work on viruses and they work better than almost any other vaccine ever developed.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:23 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:23 pm
13 people like this

Peter Carpenter,

Aren't you going just a little overboard when you said:

"" mRNA vaccines are not yet proven to work on viruses," Wrong - The clinical trials show that they DO work on viruses and they work better than almost any other vaccine ever developed."

In fact the approach was almost completely abandoned if you read from this article titled " The story of mRNA: How a once-dismissed idea became a leading technology in the Covid vaccine race " (Web Link). Specifically:

"But what the companies share may be bigger than their differences: Both are banking on a genetic technology that has long held huge promise but has so far run into biological roadblocks. It is called synthetic messenger RNA, an ingenious variation on the natural substance that directs protein production in cells throughout the body. ITS PROSPECTS HAVE SWUNG BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE STOCK MARKET, MADE AND IMPERILED SCIENTIFIC CAREERS, and fueled hopes that it could be a breakthrough that allows society to return to normalcy after months living in fear."

And:

"“I WORRY ABOUT INNOVATION AT THE EXPENSE OF PRACTICALITY,” Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an authority on vaccines, said recently. The U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed program, which has underwritten the development of Moderna’s vaccine and pledged to buy Pfizer’s vaccine if it works, is “WEIGHTED TOWARD TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS THAT HAVE NEVER MADE IT TO LICENSURE BEFORE.”

Whether mRNA vaccines succeed or not, their path from a gleam in a scientist’s eye to the brink of government approval has been a tale of personal perseverance, eureka moments in the lab, soaring expectations — and an unprecedented flow of cash into the biotech industry."

Please be careful about what you write?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:33 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:33 pm
2 people like this

"Please be careful about what you write?"

I am very careful and I have bothered to read the next chapter after the one you cited - the chapter that shows that mRNA Covid vaccines DO work and they work very well.

Web Link

Web Link


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:40 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 9:40 pm
Like this comment

Web Link

What are the plans for continued monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines authorized by FDA for emergency use?
FDA expects vaccine manufacturers to include in their EUA requests a plan for active follow-up for safety, including deaths, hospitalizations, and other serious or clinically significant adverse events, among individuals who receive the vaccine under an EUA, to inform ongoing benefit-risk determinations to support continuation of the EUA.

FDA also expects manufacturers who receive an EUA to continue their clinical trials to obtain additional safety and effectiveness information and pursue licensure (approval).

Post-authorization vaccine safety monitoring is a federal government responsibility shared primarily by FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), along with other agencies involved in healthcare delivery. Post-authorization safety monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic vaccination program will aim to continuously monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines to rapidly detect safety problems if they exist. There will be multiple, complementary systems in place with validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect signals for possible vaccine safety problems. The U.S. government has a well-established post-authorization/post-approval vaccine safety monitoring infrastructure that will be scaled up to meet the needs of a large-scale COVID-19 vaccination program. The U.S. government – in partnership with health systems, academic centers, and private sector partners – will use multiple existing vaccine safety monitoring systems to monitor COVID-19 vaccines in the post-authorization/approval period. Some of these systems are the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), the Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) Initiative, and Medicare claims data.

How will vaccine recipients be informed about the benefits and risks of any vaccine that receives an EUA?
FDA must ensure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances, that FDA has authorized the emergency use of the vaccine, of the known and potential benefits and risks, the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown, that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine, and of any available alternatives to the product. Typically, this information is communicated in a patient “fact sheet.” The FDA posts these fact sheets on our website.


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 6, 2020 at 10:33 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 10:33 pm
5 people like this

As long as the politicians don’t exercise privilege and get it first, I am good.
They plan to have a “passport” which will permit them to go to restaurants, fly/travel and enjoy themselves and carry on with their lives.
Meanwhile: medical professionals work extraordinarily hard with risk; those related to the food chain also serve a vital service. I think FAR more respect and support should be paid to them.
What will likely happen with vaccination plans:
That’s politicized (though shouldn’t be)
I guess it’s a combination of bureaucratic federal policies being developed and state policies (which will differ by state).
With Mr. Bacerra in charge soon at federal level, I’m pretty sure our tax dollars will go to prioritizing undocumented persons. I disagree with this priority. This is one of his great interests. I don’t believe he has ever worked in the private sector, either.
I expect to have to stay at home for a long time, missing out on life, since I’m relegated to end of the line as a middle-aged but not elderly (but with each decade of age, a raised risk - I am keeping this general). I am NOT pleased and wish I lived in another state which will likely prioritize longtime taxpayers over felons, undocumented, twenty somethings with low health risk, and vague “under-served communities/groups disproportionately affected by Covid.” Good God, it may be a year before I have any chance to get vaccinated!
Ummm there’s a variety of factors that affect one’s situation with respect to Covid...including behavior. I make correct choices but oppose politicians violating correct public health choices and skating.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 6, 2020 at 11:51 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2020 at 11:51 pm
56 people like this

Peter Carpenter,

[Portion removed.]

First all of your links are not associated with the article published in the journal STAT titled "The story of mRNA: How a once-dismissed idea became a leading technology in the Covid vaccine race" (Web Link). They ARE NOT any CHAPTER to it at all.

Your links do not PROVE that mRNA is a proven technique. Instead you are just demonstrating the process of the Research. Many drugs and vaccines do make progress regarding approval, but then sometimes run into a problem just before getting approval.

In fact the Thalidomide case was a great example, many studies prior to rejection were showing promise. Even getting approval regarding other countries regulatory agencies.

You know that already.

This is the first time we have seen so much bending over backwards the governmental pressure to approve a vaccine without established long term safety. It in fact was made in the name of the project: "WARP" speed. They WARPED the vaccine research process to try to achieve an approval in so short a time, it made it IMPOSSIBLE to establish the LONG TERM safety of it. It was desperation from the Trump Administration to try to get a quick fix to the COVID problem..

I look forward to the publishing of the research required during the FDA approval process. I look forward to the FDA asking the proper questions to find EVIDENCE of safety. I surely hope these meetings will be broadcast to the public so they can see what is going on. They have the right to it, correct?


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 6:37 am
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 6:37 am
45 people like this

Another issue pertaining to receiving the Covid-19 vaccine is signing a waiver which EXEMPTS Big Pharma from any & all liabilities...a red flag.

Consumer Report advises employee discretion in this matter as some businesses will also be mandating that their workers sign a waiver to protect their businesses from future law suits...red flag #2.

Lastly, vaccine-maker AstraZeneca recently received protection from any liabilty...red flag #3.

Web Link

>"...it is interesting that you don't hold the REAL people that got us in this place accountable."

>"The people who got us into this place are the people who refused to wear masks, didn't socially distance and engaged in congregant behavior."

^ From the beginning...full & actual accountability for this pandemic precedes any subsequent precautionary public health measures & advisements including the vaccine.



Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 7:34 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 7:34 am
Like this comment


The West Gave Up On Wiping Out Covid — And That Was Its Big Mistake
The West Faces a Brutal, Bleak Covid Winter — While Normalcy is Returning in the East
umair haque



What is that fundamental mistake?

It’s so simple it hides in plain sight. The West didn’t try to stamp out Covid. To reduce cases to zero. The attitude in the West was something like: “We’ll do what we can to minimize and lessen this pandemic.” It wasn’t: “we’re going to eradicate this deadly disease, and wipe it out.”

Web Link


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:12 am
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:12 am
40 people like this

>"The West didn’t try to stamp out Covid. To reduce cases to zero. The attitude in the West was something like: “We’ll do what we can to minimize and lessen this pandemic.”

^ Politics as usual (regardless of who's doing the talking)...the bottom line is that the coronavirus is still on the rampage and most governmental leaders seem to have a credibility issue keeping their citizens + the global community adequately & safely informed.

It's not just the past administration and/or 'western' perspectives.

Web Link

Web Link


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:20 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:20 am
6 people like this

Pointing fingers at China does nothing to help stopping the virus in the US.

When the history of Covid 19 is written China will bear much of the blame for starting this global wildfire but the US will stand as one of the few nations that totally screwed up fighting the resulting fires.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:28 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:28 am
2 people like this

A very well written paragraph on Covid mRNA vaccines:

"SAFETY (DOES THE BENEFIT OUTWEIGH THE RISK?)

Biggest question on people’s minds. Is it safe? Have we studied it long enough? I think the answer to both is yes and here’s why I say that: In the history of vaccine development there has never been a serious side effect that has not been recognized within 6 weeks of using the vaccine. We have not seen any serious side effect from these vaccines and we’ve been watching 35,000 people for almost 5 months now. With that said, 35,000 is not 35 million. There may be a rare serious adverse event post approval and I think we need to stay humble about the initial amazing data on these vaccines. There are systems in place (as with any vaccine) that will pick these up and will continue to monitor patients for years to come. In addition, by the time most folks are getting a vaccine there will probably be an additional 20 million people (likely their doctors) vaccinated so they can see what happened to them as well. There is certainly no “Absolute Safety” and there never can be. Again, the question you face is which risk are you more willing to accept given the situation & information you have? I have no doubt that at some point in the next year there will be a situation where a person develops some type of horrible medical condition at some point after they’ve been vaccinated and you can bet your bottom dollar that the media will be all over it. However, the vaccine will only prevent what happens from SARS-CoV-2, not everything else in life. There are lots of little nuance questions I have regarding safety but, again, I’ll let you know after I see the raw data on 12/8.

Dunlap, Merritt MD"

From a private communication - no web link available


TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:53 am
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:53 am
Like this comment

Goldy, luckily for you, not all the vaccines for SARS-Cov-2 will be of the mRNA variety. Early next year we'll begin to see regular old DNA vaccines, which have decades of use behind them. We might even get one using the ancient method of simply using a weakened version of the virus itself. So you can just wait for one that's more to your liking (ain't the free market great?), while others go first with the mRNA vaccines. Britain will be starting tomorrow with the Pfizer one, with the US soon to follow, and there's nothing you can do about that. So maybe you should use your time a little more wisely, and start cooking up objections to vaccines that haven't be released yet. The mRNA is already out of the barn.


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:56 am
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 8:56 am
28 people like this

Another red flag...how come all of these medical researchers & so-called public health pundits touting Covid-19 innoculations aren't a noteworthy segment of the preliminary vaccine test samples themselves?

That said...thank you Dunlap, Merritt MD for your encouraging words.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 7, 2020 at 9:54 am
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 9:54 am
65 people like this

Peter Carpenter,

You wrote:

“From a private communication - no web link available”

Then it does NOT EXIST. You know that. This person was expressing a personal opinion and in fact proving that the EMERGENCY USE APPROVAL is nothing but another EXPERIMENT. It is also Hearsay in this context given you cannot publicly disclose where it came from. Whoever this DOCTOR is, he did a very dumb thing writing this.

TimR,

You bet. Why not have a conventional vaccine? Britain just agreed to be our guinea pigs by very likely jumping the gun on the Pfizer one. In fact what is interesting is that he Pfizer one may not last long term given the information provided by Peter, the webpage (Web Link) The CDC webpage said:

“Facts about COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines

They cannot give someone COVID-19.

mRNA vaccines do not use the live virus that causes COVID-19. They do not affect or interact with our DNA in any way.

mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA (genetic material) is kept. The cell breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.”

Which means that the CDC just explained that this kind of vaccine has a short life span in the body. In fact the research only shows it works for perhaps 2 months. What if a new strain evolves, we have 3 strains already? Does this fact scientifically warrant the use of a vaccine that is only known to work for 2 months, which the CDC already stated it won’t last long in the body. How many booster shots are we going to need? This is why mRNA medicines are used for Cancer and Autoimmune Disease.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:05 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:05 am
2 people like this

"mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA (genetic material) is kept. The cell breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions.”

Which means that the CDC just explained that this kind of vaccine has a short life span "

WRONG!! The m in mRNA is MESSENGER which means that the vaccine carries a MESSAGE and once that message has been delivered there is NO need for the RNA and is disappears.

Many people in the clinic al trial were vaccinated as long ago as April and there is no sign that the protection has decreased.

"From a private communication - no web link available”

Then it does NOT EXIST."

Wrong it does exist. Dr. Dunlap is a real life MD. Post your email and I will send you his entire message and contact info.



[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:23 am
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:23 am
10 people like this

Peter,

if an mRNA is broken down, it does not work anymore.

You really don't understand the way RNA works. If the mRNA is broken down its instructions die with it.

Unless your saying it somehow becomes PERMANANT?

Her is a good definition from the National Human Genome Research Institute(Web Link)
:

"Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene. The mRNA is an RNA version of the gene that leaves the cell nucleus and moves to the cytoplasm where proteins are made. During protein synthesis, an organelle called a ribosome moves along the mRNA, reads its base sequence, and uses the genetic code to translate each three-base triplet, or codon, into its corresponding amino acid."

If that mRNA is "breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA soon after it is finished using the instructions", then if the body doesn't get a booster often, it will cease making the proteins for the COVID antibodies, right?

Unless you are claiming it CHANGES the DNA for long term immunity?

I will not read any research that is performed without PEER REVIEWS or it is NOT PUBLISHED. That kind of research is in a court of law not even considered evidence unless it is validated by any other research PEER REVIEWED or PUBLISHED. This DOCTOR should never do this kind of thing EVER.



Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:31 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:31 am
4 people like this

Goldy -"if an mRNA is broken down, it does not work anymore.

You really don't understand the way RNA works. If the mRNA is broken down its instructions die with it."

You are not paying attention and you are dangerously misleading people.

Per FDA "Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them."

NOTE that AFTER the messenger has delivered its message and the protein piece is made the cell gets rid of the messenger BUT keeps the newly created protein which provides the protection from Covid.

PLEASE do your homework before posting half truths and nonsense.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:35 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:35 am
Like this comment

"This DOCTOR should never do this kind of thing EVER."

This Doctor is doing exactly what his oath requires and the FDA mandates for any Rx drug/vaccine - informing his patients about the risks and benefits of anything that he intends to prescribe.


jr1
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:45 am
jr1, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:45 am
6 people like this

Lockdowns do not work. My cousin was in Spain when the virus from China came. He was prevented from leaving the condo he rented for over 5 weeks. He could only leave for 75 minutes a week to get food. He told me, the lockdown in Spain did not work. The infections and death was the same regardless if the area (country) was open or in lockdown. He finally was able to leave the country and is currently living in Ukraine, where they have few people with the virus and are not under lockdown.


Scotty
Registered user
Green Acres
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:46 am
Scotty, Green Acres
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:46 am
8 people like this

On a positive note, no one has died of the flu this year.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:49 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:49 am
2 people like this

Lockdowns ONLY work if they are accompanied by widespread testing, contact tracing and then isolation of ALL infected people.

Doing a lockdown without those measures is useless and an economic waste.

Lockdowns buy us time and that time must be used to proactively find and isolate all of the infected people.

We have NEVER had a lockdown with widespread testing, contact tracing and then isolation of ALL infected people. But such a lockdown may now be our only alternative.


jr1
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:58 am
jr1, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 10:58 am
1 person likes this

Peter if you think about your comment isolating infected people will not work. Most people don't even know they covid and circulate around. Even restricting your movement will not work, Spain tried this and it didn't work. If you examine Peru, they had the strictest lockdown, and it did not prevent the virus from spreading and had people dying. They can lock everyone down and the virus will spread. The vaccine developed by several companies will be the cure, I just hope the federal government is set up to distribute the vaccine. When you look at our local health department, I don't have much hope. I get the impression the SC county local health department is pretty bad.


Name hidden
Downtown North

Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 11:02 am
Name hidden, Downtown North

Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 11:02 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 11:02 am
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 11:02 am
46 people like this

>"Britain just agreed to be our guinea pigs by very likely jumping the gun on the Pfizer one."

^ Being a human guinea pig for an unproven vaccine is risky business.

Have they all signed their waivers to exempt Pfizer from any post-innoculation liabilities?

News flash...former presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush & Barack Obama have offered to go on national TV & receive their Covid-19 vaccinations.

It will most likely take a few more photo-op vaccination volunteers (i.e. celebrities, professional athletes, CNN 'medical experts', Fox News commentators, state governors/representatives, religious leaders (including the Pope, Dalai Lama, evangelicals get al) and a host of personal injury lawyers to fully convince the public to proceed with this gambit.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 7, 2020 at 11:11 am
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 11:11 am
42 people like this

Peter,

RNA has a life span of 2 minutes per the Science Daily journal article titled “RNA molecules live short lives “ (Web Link.) which states:

“A new method to measure the half-life of RNA molecules has now been created by researchers. Their study revealed that commonly used methods provide distorted results AND THAT RNA MOLECULES LIVE AN AVERAGE OF ONLY TWO MINUTES, TEN TIMES SHORTER THAN PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED.

mRNA has short life span from this article titled “ Non-invasive measurement of mRNA decay reveals translation initiation as the major determinant of mRNA stability “ published in eLife found here (Web Link)

“Abstract

The cytoplasmic abundance of mRNAs is strictly controlled through a balance of production and degradation. Whereas the control of mRNA synthesis through transcription has been well characterized, less is known about the regulation of mRNA turnover, and a consensus model explaining the wide variations in mRNA decay rates remains elusive. Here, we combine non-invasive transcriptome-wide mRNA production and stability measurements with selective and acute perturbations to demonstrate that mRNA degradation is tightly coupled to the regulation of translation, and that a competition between translation initiation and mRNA decay -but not codon optimality or elongation- is the major determinant of mRNA stability in yeast. OUR REFINED MEASUREMENTS ALSO REVEAL A REMARKABLY DYNAMIC TRANSCRIPTOME WITH AN AVERAGE MRNA HALF-LIFE OF ONLY 4.8 MIN - MUCH SHORTER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT. Furthermore, global mRNA destabilization by inhibition of translation initiation induces a dose-dependent formation of processing bodies in which mRNAs can decay over time.

RNA needs to be constantly produced, ironically via DNA transcription and it is described by the NIH website found here (Web Link. ) and it is defined as:

“An Overview of RNA Synthesis: RNA synthesis, or transcription, is the process of transcribing DNA nucleotide sequence information into RNA sequence information. RNA synthesis is catalyzed by a large enzyme called RNA polymerase.”

So let’s say you have 1,000,000,000 strands mRNA injected into the body and it has a half life of 5 minutes 150 minutes it will be less than 1 strand.

Let’s say you have 1,000,000,000 strands of RNA that you made with the mRNA since the have life of that RNA is only 2 minutes, it takes only 60 minutes to have less than one strand of existing RNA.

Something in the research doesn’t seem to ADD up here at all, does it?

A day is 1440 Minutes and 30 days is 43200 minutes.

The Half life of mRNA being 5 minutes you would need to have 2 to the power of (432000/5) strands in the injection of the vaccine for it to last 30 days.

The RNA would have to be 2 to the power of (432000/2) strands in the injection of the vaccine for it to last 30 days.

2 to the power of 100 comes to 1.26765E+30 strands, the calculation overloaded my Excel for the real numbers. Are they saying they are injecting that many strands of mRNA?

I surely hope the FDA is aware of this problem and it asks how did the overcome it? To me the only way to do so is alter the DNA.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 11:54 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 11:54 am
5 people like this

New Zealand, South Korea and Australia all have proved that lockdown with virus eradication by testing, tracing and isolation works.

Spain and Peru did not follow this proven technique.


cmarg
Registered user
Palo Alto High School
on Dec 7, 2020 at 12:04 pm
cmarg, Palo Alto High School
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 12:04 pm
6 people like this

Wow, I cannot believe that there are so many people who want to complain. Why can't you just accept that this is needed so we can be covid free and have our freedoms back? Why is it so hard to remain in with your family and savor the time together? Learn something new, there are so many online classes. Cook more, play board games, listen to music, enjoy life and take this as an opportunity to finally get that we need to look for the good in our lives, ideally see how faith plays a role, and be kind to one another. Let's focus on being a loving, caring, and faith filled community.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 12:44 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 12:44 pm
2 people like this

Goldy - You are not paying attention and you are dangerously misleading people.

Per FDA "Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them."

NOTE that AFTER the messenger has delivered its message and the protein piece is made the cell gets rid of the messenger BUT keeps the newly created protein which provides the protection from Covid.

PLEASE do your homework before posting half truths and nonsense.


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 12:46 pm
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 12:46 pm
36 people like this

>"Why is it so hard to remain in with your family and savor the time together?"

^ For those enduring dysfunctional family environments this opportunity can prove challenging...even distasteful for some.

>"...ideally see how faith plays a role,"

^ Of what kind...the everlasting, blind or in oneself (given certain wherewithals)?

For some, during these most trying of times, the only viable 'shots' will emanate from a state approved & seemingly 'essential' purchase... a bottle perhaps?

Probably safer (in moderation) than the proposed vaccines.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 7, 2020 at 1:26 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 1:26 pm
56 people like this

Peter,

Proteins have a half life too

They are between 3 to 5 days

So they automatically degrade and can be used up by infection. Again protection is.NOT permanent and in fact in the right cases very TEMPORARY with this technology.

Again unless we are changing the DNA of a t helper or b cell, this immunity is only temporary . The process is called AQUIRED immunity.

Please stop assuming that the process is permanent?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 3:17 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 3:17 pm
2 people like this

"Please stop assuming that the process is permanent?"

I am not BUT the process does not require the RNA to do anything once its message has been deliver and then the cells produce the spike blocking protein:

"Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them."


Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19."

"Durability of these effects remains an open question. However, follow-up data from a phase I study of Moderna's product, spanning 4 months after the first dose, showed a persistent neutralizing antibody response, though with modest declines over that period, particularly in older participants."


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 7, 2020 at 3:35 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 3:35 pm
Like this comment

[Post removed; unreliable source.]


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 7, 2020 at 4:33 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 4:33 pm
48 people like this

In response to Peter Carpenter you wrote:

“I am not BUT the process does not require the RNA to do anything once its message has been deliver and then the cells produce the spike blocking protein:

"Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them."

Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19."”

Peter, in order for it to work the mRNA must produce an ANTIBODY not a protein on an immune cell membrane. But if the mRNA injection stops producing the ANTIBODYS within one day, that means you are only stuck with a limited supply that will destroy itself in short time. If proteins have a half life of 5 days and you manage to produce 1,000,000,000 antibodies in 140 days they will all be gone. Less than a half of a year.

Please read this:

“Antibodies work by recognising and sticking to specific proteins, such as those found on the surfaces of viruses and bacteria, in a highly specific way. When the body encounters a microbe for the first time, immune cells produce antibodies that specifically recognise proteins associated with that particular microbe.”

THEN the ANTIBODY marks the viral body for attack from the immune response called COMPLEMENT which is a protein made up by the marker point of an antibody where as many as 12-15 amino acids synthesizes the COMPLEMENT protein that lyses the cell attached to it.

Thus if the Antibody count goes down to the critical point, it cannot fight an invading organism, like the COVID virus.

"Durability of these effects remains an open question. However, follow-up data from a phase I study of Moderna's product, spanning 4 months after the first dose, showed a persistent neutralizing antibody response, though with modest declines over that period, particularly in older participants."

So you are in fact proving my point, that this TREATMENT is not actually a vaccine, it is a pro active treatment that creates a synthetic antibody, but does not “TEACH” the body tp produce it’s own. Also you called the degradation a “modest decline” which means it is losing the effectiveness doesn’t it?

Sorry I was on my phone earlier, the definition of ACQUIRED immunity is:

“Acquired immunity: Immunity acquired by infection or vaccination (active immunity) or by the transfer of antibody or lymphocytes from an immune donor (passive immunity). Acquired immunity is in contrast to innate immunity (natural immunity).

Definition of Acquired immunity - MedicineNetwww.medicinenet.com › acquired_immunity › definition (Web Link).)

The human body gets acquired immunity from this process:

“Immunity is acquired actively when a person is exposed to foreign substances and the immune system responds. Passive immunity is when antibodies are transferred from one host to another. ... Artificially Acquired Passive Immunity – This involves the introduction of antibodies rather than antigens to the human body.”

Passive Immunity is not long lasting, and the people hearing the news gets the wrong idea because of Pfizer’s press releases, Passive immunity is defined as “Passive immunity provides immediate protection against an antigen, but does not provide long-lasting protection.” (Web Link.)

Why are we spending billions of dollars to get a SHORT TERM fix? Why are we allowing this to be considered a “solution” to “normalize” our way of life?

The reality is that Pfizer’s strategy is to use COVID as a CASH COW. And it appears to be working. Unless sound SCIENTIFIC minds make the determination that this process is still not living up to promised results (FDA) and says no to it.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2020 at 4:38 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 4:38 pm
5 people like this

Goldy - I give up.

You are smart enough to be dangerous but not smart enough to understand the science. Your cut and paste, cherry picking approach is beyond my patience to respond to.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 7, 2020 at 5:33 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 5:33 pm
41 people like this

Peter,

In what way did I cherry pick? I used reputable information you cannot contradict.

Where is your proof of that I don't understand science? I have an associates degree in life sciences, and was working with my father at the Harvard School of Public Health on medical research in high school.

His expertise is designing equipment to do molecular detection and and construction of complex proteins. I worked in a lab that was doing research on HIV. I was trained to operate spectrophotometers and spectrofluorometers.

If you want look up "Instrumental Studies of Porphyrin Compounds Obtained From Pyrrole Aldehyde Condensations by Dr. Jack M Goldstein Published in 1959.

In what way am I DANGEROUS? Is it dangerous to demand good science?

The bottom line is that is is NOT a "true" VACCINE, because it does not educate the body to synthesize the antibody for COVID without continual injections, the science proves it.

You can try to personally attack me as much as you want, but you cannot deny that my observation is NOYT unfounded.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 7, 2020 at 6:57 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2020 at 6:57 pm
3 people like this

Fascinating article from the San Francusco Chronicle on the breakdown of cases
Web Link

You can search it by counties; here's their tally for Santa Clara County:

Place Total cases
Campbell 651
Cupertino 251
Gilroy 2,538
Los Altos 221
Los Altos Hills 66
Los Gatos 365
Milpitas 957
Monte Sereno 31
Morgan Hill 1,091
Mountain View 1,025
Palo Alto 460
San Jose 24,070
Santa Clara 1,665
Saratoga 204
Sunnyvale 1,587
Other/Unknown 1,491


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:38 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:38 am
2 people like this

Here is the FDA's report on the Pfizer mRNA vaccine:

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine
Pfizer

1. Executive Summary
On November 20, 2020, Pfizer and BioNTech (the Sponsor) submitted an Emergency Use
On November 20, 2020, Pfizer and BioNTech (the Sponsor) submitted an Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) request to FDA for an investigational COVID19 vaccine (BNT162b2)
intended to prevent COVID19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
(SARSCoV2)The vaccine is based on the SARSCoV2 spike glycoprotein (S) antigen
encoded by RNA and formulated in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs)The proposed use und
is “for active immunization for the prevention of COVID19 caused by SARSCoV2 in
individuals 16 years of age a
The EUA request includes safety and efficacy data from an ongoing phase 3 randomized,
The EUA request includes safety and efficacy data from an ongoing phase 3 randomized,
doubleblinded and placebocontrolled trial of BNT162b2 in approximately 44,000 participants
The primary efficacy endpoint is incidence of COVID19 among participants without evidenc
SARSCoV2 infection before or during the 2dose vaccination regimenIn a midNovember
analysis of 36,621 participants randomized 11 to vaccine or placebo who were included i
perprotocol efficacy analysis population of participants without evidence of SARSCoV2
infection prior to 7 days after completion of the vaccination regimen, efficacy in preventing
confirmed COVID19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose of vaccine was 950%,
with 8 COVID19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 COVID19 cases in the placebo group
Subgroup analyses of the primary efficacy endpoint showed similar efficacy point es
across age groups, genders, racial and ethnic groups, and participants with medical
comorbidities associated with high risk of severe COVID19Secondary efficacy analyses
suggested benefit of the vaccine in preventing severe COVID19, in preventing COVID19
following the first dose, and in preventing COVID19 in individuals with prior SARSCoV
Safety data from approximately 38,000 participants ≥16 years of age randomized 1:1 to vaccine
Safety data from approximately 38,000 participants ≥16 years of age randomized 11 to vacc
or placebo with a median of 2 months of follow up after the second dose suggest a favorabl
safety profile, with no specific safety concerns identified that would preclude issuance of an
EUAAvailable safety data from all participants enrolled through the November 14,
cutoff (N43,252, which includes late enrollment of additional adolescent and adult
participants), was consistent with the safety profile for the approximately 38,000 participants
with median followup of 2 months and also did not raise specific safety concernsThe mo
common solicited adverse reactions were injection site reactions (841%), fatigue (629%)
headache (551%), muscle pain (383%), chills (319%), joint pain (236%), fever (142%);
severe adverse reactions occurred in 00% to 46% of participantswere more frequent after
Dose 2 than after Dose 1and were generally less frequent in participants 55 years of age (
28%) as compared to younger participants (46%)The frequency of serious adverse ev
was low (05%), without meaningful imbalances between study armsAmong nonserious
unsolicited adverse events, there was a numerical imbalance of four cases of Bell’s palsy
vaccine group compared with no cases in the placebo group, though the four cases in the
vaccine group do not represent a frequency above that expected in the general population
Otherwise, there were no notable patterns or numerical imbalances between treatment g
for specific categories of nonserious adverse events (including other neurologic, neuro
inflammatory, and thrombotic events) that would suggest a causal relationship to BNT162
vaccine. With the exception of more frequent, generally mild to moderate reactogenicity in
participants 55 years of age, the safety profile of BNT162b2 was generally similar across age
groups, genders, ethnic and racial groups, participants with or without medical comorbidity.



Web Link


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 8, 2020 at 7:53 am
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 7:53 am
60 people like this

All things considered, the scientific community might be grasping at straws in regards to safeguarding humans against the Covid-19 global pandemic.

Perhaps consultation with an 'outside force' could lend further advisements...

Web Link


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 8, 2020 at 8:25 am
Go[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 8:25 am
56 people like this

Peter Carpenter:

You reported:

“was consistent with the safety profile for the approximately 38,000 participants with median follow up of 2 months and also did not raise specific safety concerns. The more common solicited adverse reactions were injection site reactions (841%), fatigue (629%) headache (551%), muscle pain (383%), chills (319%), joint pain (236%), fever (142%); “

I really hope you forgot to put a decimal place in those percentages you provided. If so the correct report information would be:

“was consistent with the safety profile for the approximately 38,000 participants with median follow up of 2 months and also did not raise specific safety concerns. The more common solicited adverse reactions were injection site reactions (84.1%), fatigue (62.9%) headache (55.1%), muscle pain (38.3%), chills (31.9%), joint pain (23.6%), fever (14.2%); “

You stated:

“severe adverse reactions occurred in 00% to 46% of participants were more frequent after Dose 2 than after Dose 1and were generally less frequent in participants 55 years of age (28%) as compared to younger participants (46%)”

Again let’s hope you simply gave the wrong percentage due to a decimal point and it really said:

““severe adverse reactions occurred in 00% to 4.6% of participants were more frequent after Dose 2 than after Dose 1and were generally less frequent in participants 55 years of age (2.8%) as compared to younger participants (4.6%)”

I am assuming you missed the decimal point again and as much a 4.6% after the second dose. What is the specific “severe” reactions? And if you use that percentage on say a population of 100,000,000 people that means as much as 4,600,000 people will be anticipated to have a “severe” adverse reaction.

Does this mean it is SAFE? IDK because this report doesn’t state the actual severe responses. Again, I want the FDA meeting televised so we can see the data itself to make sure it was not manipulated in any way. The bottom line is these companies have been found to manipulate their research on many occasions. It was reported in the New York Times in the article titled “Ezperts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies” found here (Web Link)

“The drug maker Pfizer earlier this decade manipulated the publication of scientific studies to bolster the use of its epilepsy drug Neurontin for other disorders, while suppressing research that did not support those uses, according to experts who reviewed thousands of company documents for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the company.

Pfizer’s tactics included delaying the publication of studies that had found no evidence the drug worked for some other disorders, “spinning” negative data to place it in a more positive light, and bundling negative findings with positive studies to neutralize the results, according to written reports by the experts, who analyzed the documents at the request of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.”

In fact they were found GUILTY of it even the Supreme Court would not reduce the damages in the report titled “US High Court leaves intact $142 million verdict against Pfizer” found here (Web Link)

Specifically:

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact a $142 million jury verdict against Pfizer Inc over the marketing of the epilepsy drug Neurontin.”

So, I have good cause to be cautiously optimistic here. I pray we are not getting skewed medical research.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 8, 2020 at 9:12 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 9:12 am
3 people like this

An excellent overview article:

Web Link


"Side effects in clinical trials so far have been minimal and short-lived. But that does not guarantee vaccines won’t have rare and serious side effects. Rare side effects are simply unlikely to show up in a trial involving 30,000 people, only half of whom got vaccine. It’s only when vaccines are given to millions of people that we’ll have a better sense of the possibility.

Likewise, it will take time to see how long vaccine protection lasts. Nearly a year into the Covid pandemic, we still don’t even know how long people who were infected are protected. It’s known that immunity to human coronaviruses, relatives of SARS-2, can be pretty short-lived; some people, at least, can be reinfected within a year. Is that true for Covid? So far reports of reinfection are still rare. Will reinfections carry the same risk of severe illness, or will our immune systems respond quicker and turn future infections into colds, not killers? Too soon to say.

Will all the vaccines have the same durability, or will protection triggered by some be more fleeting? We’ll see.

If vaccinated people need to have their immunity boosted down the road with another shot, will they be able to get the same product they got the first time, or would they get better protection by moving to a different type of vaccine? That will have to be studied.

The situation that is about to unfold is absolutely unprecedented. There has never been a time when multiple brand-new vaccines, made with different approaches, some never used before, have hit markets around the globe in a relatively short period of time."


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 8, 2020 at 9:41 am
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 9:41 am
42 people like this

Peter Carpenter,

No argument, I hope that at least one of the candidates works out.

Again IDK about Pfizers one because the information is so sketchy at this time. It may still be VERY good, I just don't have the information yet.

I think you an I agree that as soon as we can get a good safe vaccine, we are first in line. I am not an anti-vaxxer in any way, I have always gotten myself any vaccine I can.

In the meantime, we still have to practice safe living, god I just almost said safe sex.

I want all of us to do what we can to prevent spread, you think I am happy? I am miserable because I live alone, and I cannot go to any places I feel good to be around people. I know I am suffering from depression, I am even having nightmares about my Father that died in 2007 every night now.


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 8, 2020 at 9:58 am
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 9:58 am
50 people like this

Bottom line...those who have faith in these vaccines will get innoculated ASAP while others who have apprehensions will hold off & closely monitor the results, including any reported post innoculation discomfitures & related illnesses.

As far as long term efficacies...this will be difficult to establish given 'warp speed' development, haste in government approval, viral mutations, & projected expectations as a whole.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 8, 2020 at 10:09 am
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 10:09 am
6 people like this

By the way,

AstraZeneca just issues a PEER REVIEWED report.

CNN reported it here (Web Link)

It is in the LANCET

WHERE is Pfizers research?


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 8, 2020 at 4:16 pm
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 4:16 pm
50 people like this

Another potential Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine side effect...the UK mass innoculations will probably be more conclusive.

Web Link


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 8, 2020 at 5:29 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 5:29 pm
37 people like this

That would be considered a severe reaction, I didn't comment on the specifics before.

This report indicated that the real percentage of severe side effects would be 0.5%.

The problem that arises is that is the death rate for COVID infection is only 0.19%

Severe side effects occurring from a vaccine at 2.5 times the death rate is not a very good safety standard. This is because those iatrogenic diseases can be life long problems, even regarding the lack of long term safety protocols.

I am scared because there seems to be a preference for the government to use one technique over all the rest, with disregard of long term proof of safety.

I will recalculate my original estimation, say 100,000,000 people get vaccinated and .5% have the serious side effects, that comes to 500,000 people.

Again, that is what we KNOW of NOW, not what may occur in the future with unknown adverse reactions because of the shortened testing.

To me, there are so many questions still, I pray the FDA sees that this is not a good gamble.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 8, 2020 at 5:38 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 5:38 pm
Like this comment

The Case Fatality Rate of Covid 19 in the US is 1.9%

Web Link


Me 2
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 8, 2020 at 5:53 pm
Me 2, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 5:53 pm
Like this comment

Long-term immunity has been shown with other coronaviruses - in fact recent studies have shown that people who contracted the original SARS are still immune today.

My understanding is that antibodies are not a good measure of long-term immunity. The memory of infections are actually with T-cells, which are much harder to count.

As for lockdowns working, I guess you can take South Korea off the list.

All vaccines could have side effects. The recent shot I got for shingles felt worse than what I've been hearing about the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. And what the heck is the "Washington Time?" Doesn't sound like a credible news source to me.

This alarmism is nuts.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:01 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:01 pm
39 people like this

Peter Carpenter and all others.

My apologies I did make a serious mistake There are 15,113,920 infections and 285,070 deaths resulting in 1.88%

BUT here is some follow up news from CNBC.COM titled "HEALTH AND SCIENCE
The FDA says Pfizer’s Covid vaccine is safe and effective. But trial participants warn of intense symptoms after second shot" here (Web Link).

"Many people are now wondering whether this will be just like getting the flu vaccine.

The short answer is: No, not really.

One Pfizer trial participant told CNBC that after the second shot, he woke up with chills, shaking so hard he cracked a tooth. “It hurt to even just lay in my bed sheet,” he said.

Others experienced headaches and fatigue.

The FDA said that while side effects of the Pfizer vaccine are common, there are “no specific safety concerns identified that would preclude issuance of an EUA.”

Be prepared for the second shot

The Pfizer vaccine is one of four U.S.-backed candidates in phase three trials. Next up is one from U.S. biotech firm Moderna, which has also submitted its EUA application.

Both companies have said that taking their vaccines could result in side effects similar to mild Covid symptoms. Think muscle pain, chills and a headache.

When trial participant Yasir Batalvi first read Moderna’s 22-page consent form warning of side effects ranging from nothing at all to death, he felt pretty worried, he told CNBC.

“You have to keep in mind, I joined the trial when we didn’t know it was going to be a safe vaccine,” said Batalvi, a recent college graduate living in Boston.

The 24-year-old said that when he got the first injection in mid-October, it felt just like a flu shot. “I experienced stiffness and pain in my left arm where I had gotten the shot, but it was mild,” he explained. “By that evening, I didn’t want to move my arm above my shoulder, but it was localized, and it disappeared by the next day.”

The second dose was a different story.

“After the injection, I had the same side effects as the first: localized pain and stiffness, but it was a little bit worse. My arm got sore faster, and by the time I got home, I started feeling fatigued and like anyone would feel if they were coming down with the flu,” said Batalvi.

More significant symptoms presented that evening. “I developed a low-grade fever and had chills,” he said. “That evening was rough.”

So I will agree that IF the vaccine worked perfectly and there were no other anticipated SEVERE side effect the .5% severe rate is better than the 1.8% fatality rate. BUT those people could wind up LIVING with severe long term disability. There still isn't enough EVIDENCE to prove no other iatrogenic disease will occur YET.

BUT if another vaccine made available say in another 4 months using conventional means proves effective and safe and has a provable long term safety, is it worth GAMBLING on a unprovable one having 4 months of doses being administered, because all the data is not in YET?

Isn't that scientifically correct?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:01 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:01 pm
1 person likes this

South Korea has had 11 deaths per million.

United States has had 884 deaths per million.

South Korea is using very tightly focussed and localized lockdowns in combination with aggressive testing, contact tracing and isolation of infected persons.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:09 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:09 pm
33 people like this

Peter Carpenter,

Man I wish we did what South Korea did, in the fast response to the virus.

We COULD have reduced the r(0) or R(NOT) infectious factor to at least .5 early on, thus making it possible to actually have the virus implode on itself. We could have saved Billions of dollars and prevented thousands of deaths and hospitalizations, right?

But we didn't and now we have paid the price with death, disability, loss of jobs, loss of economic stability due to increased debt for all levels of government, and wasted money on having to create the vaccines.

I went to my City Council in January trying to get them to move on the COVID and got nowhere. And everywhere went hrough the same delay and lost opportunity.


Anon Anony
Registered user
another community
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:10 pm
Anon Anony, another community
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:10 pm
4 people like this

Guess what these numbers are:
Under 1 year 29 1,484
1–4 years 16 277
5–14 years 44 445
15–24 years 439 2,855
25–34 years 1,852 5,835
35–44 years 4,771 8,246
45–54 years 12,701 15,018
55–64 years 30,875 34,423
65–74 years 53,579 52,341
75–84 years 67,305 63,752
85 years + 77,959 78,845


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:50 pm
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 8, 2020 at 6:50 pm
42 people like this

>"All vaccines could have side effects. The recent shot I got for shingles felt worse than what I've been hearing about the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.

^ Me too and due for a second shingles shot (booster) in a few months. Outside of a sore arm for about three days, no big deal.

The Covid-19 vaccination is a whole 'nother story...unproven, rushed into R&D, & being touted as a cure all...mostly by those (i.e. medical researchers, TV medical pundits & various politicians) who haven't received the shots themselves.

Talk is cheap.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:47 am
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:47 am
19 people like this

Peter Carpenter,

It took less than 2 days for a significant adverse reaction that was not disclosed in the Pfizer research to appear in Britain. The story is by the Associated Press found here (Web Link). It stated:

"LONDON (AP) — U.K. regulators said Wednesday that people who have a “significant history” of allergic reactions shouldn’t receive the new Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while they investigate two adverse reactions that occurred on the first day of the country’s mass vaccination program.

Professor Stephen Powis, national medical director for the National Health Service in England, said health authorities were acting on a recommendation from the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

“As is common with new vaccines the MHRA have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday,” Powis said in a statement. “Both are recovering well.”

Why wasn't this identified prior to mass injections? Because they are RUSHING the process. In fact 50 million people have significant issues with allergies in the U.S. as seen here (Web Link.). Which is 15% of the country.

It looks like the "SAMPLES" of the Pfizer study didn't seem to have these people in it, right? They don't even know what causes this problem and what allergies

I hope the FDA takes this into account.


Me 2
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 9, 2020 at 10:52 am
Me 2, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 10:52 am
1 person likes this

Goldy - what you're posting is bordering on being irresponsible. It really makes me question your motives.

There's no such thing as a 100% safe anything. In fact, if you have a history of severe allergy to medication or vaccinations, it is widely known that you should be cautious with anything you injest or get injected. It's not specific to the COVID-19 vaccine.

You're taking small snippets of facts to confirm your own bias. You're free to not take the vaccine -- that's your prerogative [portion removed.]


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 11:20 am
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 11:20 am
19 people like this

Me 2:

In what way am I irresponsible? I am disclosing information that already existed, Pfizer could be argued as "manipulating" their sample group to avoid having to say there is a "KNOWN" risk. This exclusion of these people were probably WELL KNOWN by Pfizer that it would have elevated risks of adverse reactions, and it did not want to report them, right?

This is why we do not have a PEER REVIEWED study, the review process would have likely exposed this risk.

They have been caught doing that in the past with other research regarding the drug Neurontin. The case information can be found here ("Web Link)

The UK warnings are valid. And are necessary for the safety of those where the vaccine has not been proven safe.

This is not irresponsible, in fact it is well established that Pfizer might be acting "VERY" irresponsible, and I am just putting the pieces together.




Me 2
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 9, 2020 at 2:05 pm
Me 2, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 2:05 pm
2 people like this

Goldy - you're only posting one small portion of the overall picture. It's like the uncle in Facebook posting only specific "facts" about why the election was stolen. Yes, they are technically "facts," but lack the big picture understanding of the whole situation.

This is not a medical site. This is not a bioscience research site. What you're posting lacks context of the overall science and other studies that have been made In general. The safety of vaccines and medication, for instance. Typical side effects. Safety relative to other things you might be doing.

For example, the vaccine could be safer than driving a car. We don't know that definitely, but it's an appropriate part of critical thinking of what you're reading.

You're feeding into your confirmation bias against the vaccines. I challenge you to find and post articles that go against your feeling that the vaccines are unsafe.

This is why you should always read things on the Internet with a skeptical eye. (Jeez, I shouldn't have to write that in a Silicon Valley-based discussion forum).


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 2:19 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 2:19 pm
2 people like this

Me 2 - Thank you for helping put Goldy's comments in their proper perspective.
Cheery picking sentences, even ones from good scientific sources, can and does create misinformation.


Lee Forrest
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 3:09 pm
Lee Forrest, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 3:09 pm
33 people like this

A lot of Americans have their doubt about these new Covid-19 vaccines...can't rightly blame them.

Web Link


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:15 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:15 pm
17 people like this

Peter Carpenter et al,

Here is the list of people excluded from the Pfizer test sample, thereby completely making the test samples not random and not consistent with the general public. This is from THEIR OWN WEBSITE titled “ STUDY TO DESCRIBE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY ADULTS, NCT04368728 “ here (Web Link)

They only INCLUDED the following people:

“Male or female participants between the ages of 18 and 55 years, inclusive, 65 and 85 years, inclusive, or ≥12 years, inclusive, at randomization (dependent upon study phase). Note that participants <18 years of age cannot be enrolled in the EU.

Participants who are willing and able to comply with all scheduled visits, vaccination plan, laboratory tests, lifestyle considerations, and other study procedures.

HEALTHY PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE DETERMINED BY MEDICAL HISTORY, PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, AND CLINICAL JUDGMENT OF THE INVESTIGATOR TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE STUDY.

Participants who, in the judgment of the investigator, are at risk for acquiring COVID-19.

Capable of giving personal signed informed consent”

They EXCLUDED:

OTHER MEDICAL OR PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION INCLUDING RECENT (WITHIN THE PAST YEAR) OR ACTIVE SUICIDAL IDEATION/BEHAVIOR OR LABORATORY ABNORMALITY THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF STUDY PARTICIPATION OR, IN THE INVESTIGATOR'S JUDGMENT, MAKE THE PARTICIPANT INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE STUDY.

HISTORY OF SEVERE ADVERSE REACTION ASSOCIATED WITH A VACCINE AND/OR SEVERE ALLERGIC REACTION (EG, ANAPHYLAXIS) TO ANY COMPONENT OF THE STUDY INTERVENTION(S).

ANTICIPATING THE NEED FOR IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT WITHIN THE NEXT 6 MONTHS

IMMUNOCOMPROMISED INDIVIDUALS WITH KNOWN OR SUSPECTED IMMUNODEFICIENCY, AS DETERMINED BY HISTORY AND/OR LABORATORY/PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.

BLEEDING DIATHESIS OR CONDITION ASSOCIATED WITH PROLONGED BLEEDING THAT WOULD, IN THE OPINION OF THE INVESTIGATOR, CONTRAINDICATE INTRAMUSCULAR INJECTION.

WOMEN WHO ARE PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING.

INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVE TREATMENT WITH IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE THERAPY, INCLUDING CYTOTOXIC AGENTS OR SYSTEMIC CORTICOSTEROIDS, EG, FOR CANCER OR AN AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE, OR PLANNED RECEIPT THROUGHOUT THE STUDY.

RECEIPT OF BLOOD/PLASMA PRODUCTS OR IMMUNOGLOBULIN, FROM 60 DAYS BEFORE STUDY INTERVENTION ADMINISTRATION OR PLANNED RECEIPT THROUGHOUT THE STUDY.”

There were more but I wanted to cover those used in the entire project. So, only included those that had no other medical conditions AT ALL and they excluded all of the above, and expected us to think it was a good “scientific” sample of the general public, REALLY?

What misinformation is there here? It is their own disclosures.

Again, EVERY vaccine that I have been able to take, where there is a reliable safety record, I have taken. I am not an anti-vaxxer.

But I Am a very careful reader, with a skeptical eye, just like Me 2 wrote, and I see the glaring problems here. In effect you cannot claim any misinformation nor any of my writing is a false representation of the medical research, can you?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:47 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:47 pm
Like this comment

"Here is the list of people excluded from the Pfizer test sample, thereby completely making the test samples not random and not consistent with the general public."

This was EXACTLY as required by the FDA for an acceptable Phase 3 study.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:51 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:51 pm
1 person likes this

By the way Accutane, did me serious harm when I took it.

Other side effect were:

"Accutane (isotretinoin) is prescribed to treat severe, difficult to control acne. Common side effects can include dry skin, chapped lips, vision issues, and joint pain. The more serious, severe side effects of isotretinoin include birth defects, mental health problems, and stomach issues.

I almost committed suicide and had a severe depressive state because I took it when I was in high school. Unfortunately I didn't learn about those side effects until 1997. Too late to file a complaint.

When the FDA approves this vaccine it will also remove any adverse impact liability under the Vaccination Adverse Reaction Protection laws. This is why Pfizer wants to get this to market so badly. It makes it almost a no lose situation, if the Vaccine proves out to not work in the long run, they aren't going to be accountable to it.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:55 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:55 pm
Like this comment

"By the way Accutane, did me serious harm when I took it."

Did you and your doctor review the PPI before you took the drug?

The listed side effects were well known and in the PPI in 1975.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:56 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 4:56 pm
Like this comment

Peter,

Well, maybe the FDA scientific standards are wrong? I know they are trying to eliminate extra variables so they can determine a "Cause and Effect" correlation.

BUT.

If you cannot get an accurate general population sample so that you cannot get an accurate impact on the general public, that is what is called manipulated data and manipulated results, right?

These kinds of studies wind up setting up people as just another big picture guinea pig. There is NO real safety under this model for the general population. I thought the FDA and other researchers discovered this 40 years ago, and was working to eliminate this risk.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 5:00 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 5:00 pm
1 person likes this

Accutane did not include these side effects until 1998, I took it in 1983-1986. Here is the history of it " A Short History of Accutane " (Web Link.)

You should not assume anything regarding the "black boxes" because they change over time.

Please be careful?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 5:02 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 5:02 pm
Like this comment

The FDA is REQUIRING any company with an EUA to do Phase 4 studies which collect data from EVERYONE receiving the drug/vaccine. This is the best way to detect side effects that occur in populations that were not included in the Phase 3 studies and to detect any delayed side effects in any population.


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 5:08 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 5:08 pm
1 person likes this

Peter Carpenter,

So the whole world becomes a guinea pig on a vaccine that has NOT been proven safe to the general public?

It makes the FDA a form of a tombstone safety organization, it waits for people to get sick or die ENOUGH to warrant more warnings?

I understand because they are like the EPA. SEC, and the FAA for starters, they perform the role of watchdog and promotion of the markets they are to regulate.

The people deserve better than this.

THis inherently has a conflict of interest, especially involving science.




Me 2
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 9, 2020 at 5:53 pm
Me 2, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 5:53 pm
2 people like this

What's your motive, Goldy?

Trying to get people to not get vaccinated?

That makes you an anti-vaxxer by definition.

Hint: This is a discussion board on the Internet. No one ever changes their mind on these forums. Or any forums.

Again, you're free to abstain, but these conspiracy theories are nuts. If you want to engage in a thoughtful conversation, great. But that's not what I'm seeing from you.


Anon Anony
Registered user
another community
on Dec 9, 2020 at 6:21 pm
Anon Anony, another community
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 6:21 pm
Like this comment

[Post removed.]


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 6:34 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 6:34 pm
3 people like this

Peter Carpenter was the Executive Vice President of the ALZA Corporation, President of the ALZA Development Corporation and has had significant experience with the FDA, NDAs and Patient Package Inserts and holds three medical device patents.

He was also the Executive Director of the Stanford University Medical Center, a Visiting Scholar at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics and Chairman of the American Foundation for Aids Research (AmFAR).

He has served on a number of Institute of Medicine committees:

• Committee on Contraceptive Research and Development
(1994-1996)
• Committee on Medication Development and Research at the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (1993-1994)
• Committee to Study Decision-making on Biomedical Innovations (1989-1991)
• Working Group on Social and Ethical Impact of Advances in Biomedicine (1991)


He was the co-founder and chair of the Dean's Advisory Committee at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health.

He was a Director, Chairman and President of InSTEDD (Innovative Support to Emergencies, Diseases and Disasters).

He has served as a Director of Annual Reviews for over 25 years.

He is the author of numerous papers on patient information and informed choice.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 6:49 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 6:49 pm
2 people like this

Biomedical Politics. National Academies Press


Commentary: Peter F. Carpenter
This case study is a factual, if biased, discussion of why RU-486 is not presently available in the United States. The conflict in this instance is between individuals who want access to a particular drug and some members of the broader society who feel that such access would be morally (rather than scientifically) wrong. It is difficult but still far easier to balance differences of scientific opinion than to balance differences of moral values. Most of the participants and constituencies involved in the RU-486 controversy appear to have defined the issue in terms of requiring a yes or no answer to the question “Should RU-486 be available in the United States?” That question is based on the hidden assumption that an appropriate decision-making process already exists, or that no such process is desired because the decision will be made on the basis of a moral, political, or economic point of view. There was little agreement as to a mutually accepted way of dealing with the issue.

The RU-486 decision was clearly not a stand-alone issue; it was deeply embedded in the larger abortion rights issue, and this greatly impeded and obscured the decision process.

The foreign events of this case are well documented. The domestic events are not so well documented, but that may be inevitable because many of those events were, in fact, “nonevents” (i.e., things that did not happen or negative decisions not [yet] subject to public analysis). Because the case dealt with nondecisions or non-public decisions regarding U.S. availability of RU-486, the actual decision-making process was difficult to describe; only limited information about this process was available to the author for presentation in the case study.

The formal French approval process was predetermined, but the subsequent decision by the French government to require product marketing was an ad hoc process. To the extent that there was a U.S. decision-making process, it was totally ad hoc. This ad hoc process was evolutionary, but without either a guiding principle or any attempt to construct a rational process to directly address the issue from multiple perspectives. This “decision-making process” consisted of well-organized public relations campaigns. The threat of boycotts supplanted reasoned scientific and political debates, and will probably become an inappropriate model for “deciding” difficult decisions that involve both biomedical innovation and moral questions.

The question about whether RU-486 should be available in the United States has evolved into a highly polarized debate between vocal and economically powerful constituencies on opposite sides of the issue with practically no participation by larger and more broadly based constituencies. The absence of a formalized decision-making process allowed the issue to be decided, albeit temporarily, without input from all of the affected constituencies and as a result the current (non)decision is unlikely either to be a stable decision or, absent new actors, to lead to a better process the next time around.

A gradual softening of Roussel's position not to make the product available for sale outside of France will eventually remove a significant obstacle to availability in the United States. However, at that point someone or some institution will need to take responsibility for creating a process whereby this issue can be properly addressed by all affected constituencies.

Footnotes
Peter F. Carpenter, a former pharmaceutical company (ALZA) and federal government (Office of Management and Budget) executive, is a visiting scholar at the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University.

Copyright © 1991 by the National Academy of Sciences.


Web Link


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 6:57 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 6:57 pm
Like this comment

Peter Carpenter,

You used the language:

"Peter Carpenter WAS the Executive Vice President of the ALZA Corporation, President of the ALZA Development Corporation and has had significant experience with the FDA, NDAs and Patient Package Inserts and holds three medical device patents."

ARE YOU PETER CARPENTER, this sentence implies you are NOT him?

Me 2,

Simply saying someone is an "anti-vaxxer" is not a logical approach nor is it going to persuade anyone because you are doing nothing but a personal attack. It is just an adjective you assign to me, which in no way scientifically disproves my comments. Period.

Anon,

I have a big disagreement with these people, but they have the right to their "beliefs" and to express them. But I also have the equal right to "fact-check" or "nit-pick" any claims they make. If they bring up anything that can be disproved by reliable sources, then I will simply bring it up.

In any event, I really hope we don't see a major explosion of adverse reactions on the Medical Care professionals in this country because they use this vaccine and it proves to be a bad one. This is the only motivation I have. We already have a shortage of Medical Care workers, especially in the ICU field.



Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:07 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:07 pm
2 people like this

IUD MAKER GAMBLES ON THE INFORMED CONSUMER

In January 1986, the U.S. market for government-approved intrauterine contraceptive devices became an instant monopoly of Alza Corp., a small (1986 sales: $57.8 million; employees, 350), nine-year-old pharmaceutical manufacturer in Palo Alto, Calif.

Last week, Washington Post staff writer Morton Mintz interviewed Peter F. Carpenter, executive vice president of Alza and president of its development division.

Web Link


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:09 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:09 pm
2 people like this

"ARE YOU PETER CARPENTER?"

Yes indeed I am.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:39 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:39 pm
3 people like this

Alternative health website spreads false claim about COVID-19 vaccine side effects:

Web Link

As U.S. coronavirus cases near 300,000, public health agencies are developing a strategy to distribute vaccines to millions of Americans in 2021. The first doses could be only days away, so we wanted to take a closer look at the claim that they could cause serious harm.

The article is misleading.

While the FDA is monitoring for potential adverse side effects, it has not found that any of the coronavirus vaccines seeking approval cause death. And just because COVID-19 vaccines were developed in record time doesn’t mean they’re unsafe.

The website’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.


Anon Anony
Registered user
another community
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:46 pm
Anon Anony, another community
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:46 pm
Like this comment

[Post removed.]


[email protected]
Registered user
Mountain View
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:46 pm
[email protected], Mountain View
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:46 pm
Like this comment

[Post removed; off topic.]


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:51 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:51 pm
Like this comment

[Post removed.]


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:52 pm
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:52 pm
Like this comment

[Post removed.]


Anon Anony
Registered user
another community
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:58 pm
Anon Anony, another community
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2020 at 7:58 pm
Like this comment

[Post removed.]


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.