Jump to content
Sniper

Rutgers Becomes First US College To Make COVID Jabs Mandatory For Students

Recommended Posts

Because 99.99% of kids in that age group survive Covid....

Administrators said President Joe Biden's mandate for everyone to be eligible for a vaccine by May, made during the president's first official press conference yesterday, should give students plenty of time to get their shots, UPI reports.

"We are committed to health and safety for all members of our community, and adding COVID-19 vaccination to our student immunization requirements will help provide a safer and more robust college experience for our students," Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway said in a statement.

"Vaccination is key to stopping the current pandemic," Brian Strom, chancellor of Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, said.

But then there's this:

.."The university won't require staff and faculty to receive the vaccine, but they will be "strongly urged" to receive it."

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/03/26/new-jersey-rutgers-university-students-covid-vaccine/3531616761439/

So, for younger kids (who don't get sick from Covid), it will be mandatory, but for older professors (who do get worse cases) it won't..

Liberal Logic at it's finest!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sniper said:

So, for younger kids (who don't get sick from Covid), it will be mandatory, but for older professors (who do get worse cases) it won't..

they have a better union I guess.. I’d be interested to see how it goes,  I assume there will be some blow-back but will there be enough to stop it? Let me know when you them bootleg vaccine cards. I’m just kidding of course  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Zabuca said:

Colleges and universities routinely require vaccines. This isn’t anything new. 

Grammar school brooklyn 70's....  vaccine card.

Somehow didn't seem like my rights were violated...  go figure....

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zabuca said:

Colleges and universities routinely require vaccines. This isn’t anything new. 

Really... When was the last time a college required a NON FDA approved vaccine for students?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the last time there was a global pandemic with a very infectious virus?

Let it go, no one really cares that you are that dead set against the vax....  

Its really not that important, none of our opinions matter - you cannot will not change the policy of Rutgers by complaining about a vaccine on njgf.

 

:)

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

When was the last time there was a global pandemic with a very infectious virus?

 

About 100 years ago.

This China Flu isn't one of them. But you can continue to hide in your basement, if it makes you feel safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2021 at 10:55 AM, Sniper said:

Really... When was the last time a college required a NON FDA approved vaccine for students?

Stop with your rationality... it hurts the brain of the less rational...

On 3/27/2021 at 12:44 PM, CAL. .30 M1 said:

When was the last time there was a global pandemic with a very infectious virus?

Let it go, no one really cares that you are that dead set against the vax....  

Its really not that important, none of our opinions matter - you cannot will not change the policy of Rutgers by complaining about a vaccine on njgf.

 

:)

 

Students that choose other colleges would affect their decision.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kevin125 said:

Stop with your rationality... it hurts the brain of the less rational...

Yeah... crazy... just a minor small detail... get your vaccine, because the President of Rutgers says so...

....."Keep in mind the vaccines are not FDA approved yet; instead all the vaccines are being administered under a federal Emergency Use Authorization (EAU).

Essentially what Rutgers is forcing upon their students is a mandatory policy for a vaccine that is not FDA approved.  However, faculty and staff are not required, only the students.  This is nuts! 

danger-covid-19-comrade.jpg

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2021/03/28/rutgers-university-will-require-covid-vaccine-to-attend-in-person-classes-starting-in-august/

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with @Sniper for once. 

I see the benefits of the vaccine, however it is NOT FDA approved. If you want to get it, fine. However, mandating someone get a vaccination that isn't even approved is absurd. 

I'm not sure what the "rule" is here, but schools typically only require certain vaccinations if you live on campus. Even then, the vaccinations are approved by the FDA. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

I'm not sure what the "rule" is here, but schools typically only require certain vaccinations if you live on campus. Even then, the vaccinations are approved by the FDA. 

There, made it more noticeable.

Some here want to use the story that kids were vaccinate with other vaccines, so this should be no big deal. But, those other vaccines went through MULTIPLE YEARS worth of trials and data collection BEFORE approved by the FDA. The China Flu vaccine was given a EUA less than 2 MONTHS after second injection, and this is a brand NEW vaccine, there hasn't be a single mRNA vaccine approved for use by the FDA in the country.

Anyone who is fine with mandatory, mass vaccination with this unproven vaccine is nuts!

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

I'm with @Sniper for once. 

I see the benefits of the vaccine, however it is NOT FDA approved.

I don't think the FDA or the medical community really cares, once the EUA is approved.  Getting the vaccines in arms was, and is, the priority.   'Fully approved' vs 'Experimental Use Authorization Approved' is a distinction without a difference.   The FDA has their hands full right now, but will eventually go back and dot the i's and cross the t's with  full approvals...but they will do that using the same clinical trial data set they already reviewed to approve the EUA.  So, no surprises are likely to crop up.  It's not like a new set of clinical trials is run for approval, vs. what was run for the EUA.

They will have the advantage of having some real-world data from the millions of people who have been vaccinated, and that is very reassuring, but it's neither tightly controlled nor was the population selected for statistical validity across risk factors the way the clinical trials were.

It's worth remembering that any prescription medicines in your medicine cabinet were almost certainly approved based on a clinical trial with perhaps 300 to 3000 people participating in phase 3.  The trials leading to the Covid vaccine EUAs included 30,000 to 40,000 for each company seeking approval.    Why?  There are two ways to get to a statistically-valid endpoint quickly for a vaccine clinical trial.  One is to be working with a disease that spreads rapidly, so your test population hits the exposure target quickly.  The other is to make the trial friggin' huge, so that you can include a lot of risk subgroups right out of the gate, and still hit statistical significance in a hurry.  These trials happened to check both boxes.  

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 10X said:

I don't think the FDA or the medical community really cares, once the EUA is approved.  Getting the vaccines in arms was, and is, the priority.   'Fully approved' vs 'Experimental Use Authorization Approved' is a distinction without a difference.   The FDA has their hands full right now, but will eventually go back and dot the i's and cross the t's with  full approvals...but they will do that using the same clinical trial data set they already reviewed to approve the EUA.  So, no surprises are likely to crop up.  It's not like a new set of clinical trials is run for approval, vs. what was run for the EUA.

It sounds reasonable to ask then.......Why eventually do anything more?   If there is no distinction, why do it?  Why aren’t all therapeutic drugs and vaccines approved using EUA if its good enough?

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 10X said:

I don't think the FDA or the medical community really cares, once the EUA is approved.

And this is where the media confusion comes from, and why people think it's "approved" like every other past vaccine. There's a difference, but most people don't care or want to know the truth.

13 hours ago, 10X said:

Fully approved' vs 'Experimental Use Authorization Approved' is a distinction without a difference.  

Sorry, wrong answer. "Fully approved" comes many times AFTER Phase 3 is completed and a BLA is submitted, and in the case of these vaccines, end of Phase 3 is two years after second vaccination. Then, the FDA goes over all the Adverse Events data and determines if they will approve it.

From the FDA:

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

You can also learn about the distinction in the first 3 paragraphs here: https://www.theverge.com/22189236/fda-approval-authorization-difference-clearance-vaccines

And here: https://vaccine.unchealthcare.org/science/vaccine-approval/whats-the-difference-between-fda-emergency-use-authorization-and-fda-approval/

13 hours ago, 10X said:

The FDA has their hands full right now, but will eventually go back and dot the i's and cross the t's with  full approvals...but they will do that using the same clinical trial data set they already reviewed to approve the EUA.  So, no surprises are likely to crop up.  It's not like a new set of clinical trials is run for approval, vs. what was run for the EUA.

Once again, you're "clouding" the truth. Maybe I should start calling YOU Greta.

Yes, they look at the same clinical data but with an ADDITIONAL focus on Adverse Events and other unforseen issues that showed up during the balance of Phase 3. THIS is the point where MOST new drugs fail and don't get approved, during the larger Phase 3 trials where more Adverse Reactions show their head, and why maybe only 1 out of 12 new compounds make it to final approval. The other 11 get scrapped because they couldn't make the end point or had too many AEs.

I'd bet there's a good chance these vaccines get final approval due to political pressure, even with the growing list of AEs showing up. Wouldn't there be a hell of a lot of egg on the FDA's face and government if they didn't approve the vaccines, after 100's of millions of people have been vaccinated?

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kevin125 said:

It sounds reasonable to ask then.......Why eventually do anything more?   If there is no distinction, why do it?  Why aren’t all therapeutic drugs and vaccines approved using EUA if its good enough?

Fair question, and I had to do some digging to find an answer.   EUAs are temporary.  An EUA doesn't have an expiration date, but the authority under which it was granted will be rescinded at some point.

 EUAs are pretty rare, and they can only be issued in response to certain declared Public Health Emergencies where no treatment or diagnostic test exists, or is available in sufficient quantity.   So there is a regulatory trigger, without which an EUA isn't possible.   You'll never see an EUA for a line extension of cosmetic botox; no emergency there.   The EUA for Pfizer was approved to meet the emergency, and EUAs for J&J, and Moderna were approved because the 'sufficient quantity' test wasn't met.   We'll soon be over that hump, so while AstraZeneca has indicated they intend to apply for US approval (they haven't yet), I have a hunch that they won't get an EUA-they may not even apply for one-and would have to go for full approval if they want to sell in the US.     Given the missteps AZ has made previously, even that will be tough to obtain.

When the regulatory trigger that allowed approval under an EUA expires, so does the EUA...so if a drug is to remain on the market after the declared emergency ends, it has to obtain full approval.    A handful of EUAs were issued in response to the 2009 H1N1 outbreak (for vaccines, antivirals, and diagnostic tests), but when the Public Health Emergency for H1N1 expired in mid-2010, those EUAs all became invalid...so anything worth carrying over past that time had to go for full approval.  The EUAs for MERS and Zika both expired because those diseases have largely gone underground, so they aren't needed.  The EUA for the Ebola vaccine is no longer in effect, because the vaccine (two, now) went on to obtain full approval.  The antiviral Remdesivir was approved under an EUA for treatment of Covid patients, but it has since gone on for full approval, so that EUA is no longer in effect.

A reference on EUAs

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that explanation 10x.

it would seem then, after the EUA is deemed invalid due to the end of the health emergency, there really wouldn’t be anything left to do beyond filing for FDA approval.. There would not be many people who didn’t already receive one of these vaccinations.  So testing is pretty much moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kevin125 said:

it would seem then, after the EUA is deemed invalid due to the end of the health emergency, there really wouldn’t be anything left to do beyond filing for FDA approval.. There would not be many people who didn’t already receive one of these vaccinations.  So testing is pretty much moot.

The point of final approval comes after a specific time point, usually at the end of Phase 3, where the FDA will do a look back at all the Adverse Reactions and safety data, to determine if final approval is warranted. There's no way to "speed" this process up, as health issues only pop up after a block of time has passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 8:05 AM, 10X said:

EUAs are temporary.  An EUA doesn't have an expiration date, but the authority under which it was granted will be rescinded at some point.

EUAs are pretty rare, and they can only be issued in response to certain declared Public Health Emergencies where no treatment or diagnostic test exists, or is available in sufficient quantity.   So there is a regulatory trigger, without which an EUA isn't possible.   

When the regulatory trigger that allowed approval under an EUA expires, so does the EUA...so if a drug is to remain on the market after the declared emergency ends, it has to obtain full approval.    

@10X

We are now being informed by various infectious disease health experts that the effectiveness of all three COVID-19 vaccines being administered in the U.S., is essentially for approximately six (6) months, after one is fully vaccinated.

I have read that Pfizer, Moderna and J&J are all currently working on creating and manufacturing a so-called one-shot "booster" vaccine that will address and provide further protection against the number of mutant variation strains of the COVID-19 virus, (for how long remains to be determined....).  The head of Pfizer has stated that he thinks their version of this booster shot may be ready towards the end of 2021.  

Question:  Will all of these pharmaceutical companies be manufacturing and presumably distributing these modified "booster" COVID-19 vaccines under the continued authorization of the EUA, or will they have, in your opinion, most likely received final FDA approval for the original vaccines by some time during the 4th Quarter of 2021 and therefore, any booster vaccine would be included in that approval? 

Thank you in advance for sharing your knowledge and opinion on this...

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2021 at 8:33 PM, bennj said:

UPenn and Drexel on board too. Faculty and staff probably exempt because they are union. Funny thing is, profs and staff are the more vulnerable age group, just goes to show it's nothing but political theater.

I’m glad we are done with Drexel.  Political theater indeed.  Utter nonsense is another way to describe it.  Schools should be forced to explain the logic that students must be vaccinated and the staff is not required to be vaccinated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@10X

We are now being informed by various infectious disease health experts that the effectiveness of all three COVID-19 vaccines being administered in the U.S., is essentially for approximately six (6) months, after one is fully vaccinated.

I have read that Pfizer, Moderna and J&J are all currently working on creating and manufacturing a so-called one-shot "booster" vaccine that will address and provide further protection against the number of mutant variation strains of the COVID-19 virus, (for how long remains to be determined....).  The head of Pfizer has stated that he thinks their version of this booster shot may be ready towards the end of 2021.  

Question:  Will all of these pharmaceutical companies be manufacturing and presumably distributing these modified "booster" COVID-19 vaccines under the continued authorization of the EUA, or will they have, in your opinion, most likely received final FDA approval for the original vaccines by some time during the 4th Quarter of 2021 and therefore, any booster vaccine would be included in that approval? 

Thank you in advance for sharing your knowledge and opinion on this...

AVB-AMG

The short answer is, "I don't know"

The longer version is that, based on the data I'm seeing, I'm not convinced that a booster will be necessary, at least not for all of the vaccines.  I'm not inside any of the companies named, so they have more recent data, but I still very much have the impression that the 'six month' figure means we don't have good data on what happens after that, not that the efficacy plunges after six months.  Still, it's reasonable for the companies to be working on a booster, in case it is needed.  It would be irresponsible of them not to.

The EUA question is interesting, but I can only speculate.  Since Covid doesn't yet show signs of disappearing entirely, the way SARS did, we'll want the vaccine(s) fully approved so that they can be used after the Public Health Emergency is declared over.   I don't know how far down that path the companies have yet gone.  The mRNA vaccines have enough good data to get full approval now, J&J may still need to answer some questions about the rare blood clots, and AZ, having never submitted for an EUA or an approval in the US, is unlikely to apply for an EUA and may never sell in the US under any circumstances.  

I'm not sure if companies are planning to include a booster in the application for full FDA approval (that will require gathering a lot more data), or if they'll get full approvals for the vaccines, and bring the booster along under an EUA.   I doubt it's possible to fully approve a booster while the parent vaccine is still approved under an EUA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...