Once again, Silver reveals that he has no idea what he's talking about. The J&J / Janssen vaccine uses a technology (adenoviral vector) that is entirely different from Moderna & Pfizer's (mRNA).
Let's talk for a second about what the FDA is doing and why.
First, Silver's (and Yglesias's) whole argument is premised on FDA review of J&J's vaccine delaying distribution. That's questionable. J&J keeps a lot of this stuff confidential, but we know they've had delays and are not ready to distribute yet.
At this very moment, the Biden admin is working to speed up J&J's production line. @aslavitt46 is on it. There is no benefit whatsoever in yelling at the FDA for doing its job to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
One thing FDA has to do is see if "zero deaths" is correct. J&J could've had deaths with symptoms of COVID, but not PCR-confirmed. FDA also must sort out that 15% for which it was ineffective at preventing severe COVID. And much more.
/4
Second, "approval" isn't a simple yes. The odds of J&J's vaccine being approved in some form are high. The odds of it being approved exactly as J&J applied are low. There will be changes to manufacturing & labeling, with potentially huge ramifications.
/5
Adenoviral vector vaccines are cool new tech, but what does "consistent" mean here? Janssen recently published a paper saying they hadn't done a statistical review of Ad26 adverse effects: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
I don't trust J&J's PR, but I trust David Kessler's review.
/6
The cost of error in a rapid drug deployment is quite high. Poor efficacy or serious side effects would have massive ramifications.
To get Vioxx approved, Merck claimed 0.4% of clinical trial users had myocardial infarctions, when it was 0.494%. This was the impact:
/7
If J&J's vaccine has efficacy or adverse effects that differs compared to Moderna/Pfizer, we need to know the specifics.
Put another way: let's give your grandmother the one better for her and I'll take the other—but it's not obvious which is which. Let the FDA do its job.
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's hardly surprising to see something thoughtless and outrageous from Greenwald & Dore, but I want to discuss one particular undercurrent of misogyny here, because it's widespread.
That is: if a woman is impolite to a man, the man is absolved of all responsibility.
Let's assume Ted Cruz, a champion of deregulation who voted to rollback much of Dodd-Frank and is married to a managing director at Goldman Sachs, was sincere. 🙄
Is there a valid reason why Cruz's support for an investigation should depend on AOC's response? Of course not.
/2
For comparison, many members of the Obama admin had a hostile relationship with Warren over the CFPB's formation.
It would've been weird, gross, and pathetic if Obama had withdrawn support over that. But he's a grown man, so the work continued.
/3
Yeah. The "power-sharing" is more "procedure-clarification" in lieu of a week pointlessly voting 50/50->Harris tie-breaker on each piece. Senate Dems still hold committee chairs, set calendars, and won't have bills blocked from the floor—which was McConnell's primary weapon.
An *excellent* question. McConnell would not do it in this document. He would do it later by violating a rule, getting rejected by the presiding officer, then appealing the ruling to the full Senate, which would vote his way, 50-50 plus VP tie-breaker.
If this sounds ridiculous—huh? McConnell agrees to Senate rules that he then reinterprets???—it's *exactly* what he did in April 2017 to eliminate filibusters for nominees, to move Gorsuch through: fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R…
This time around, however, the deciding vote would be...
Hawley's argument is: starting in 1937, Pennsylvania has repeatedly violated its state constitution—including with an October 2019 bill supported by 132 out of 137 Republican state legislators that not one person claimed was unconstitutional until after Biden won.
§ 4, from 1901, says voting "methods" other than ballot are as "prescribed by law," i.e. legislature can alter. § 14 says what absentee ballots must be allowed. They've expanded that a couple times, 1957, 1967, 1985, 1997.
/2
Beginning in 1937, the Pennsylvania has had its own qualifications for absentee ballots, broadening eligibility beyond Art VII, § 14 of the PA Constitution. This, too, has been amended a bunch of times: 1963, 1968, 1980, 1998, 2006, 2012.
/3 legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/L…
The Senators falsely claim the courts ignored the Trump campaign's challenges, and say there's a need for "resolution of the multiple allegations of serious voter fraud."
So let's talk about the actual lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign.
Pennsylvania: the Trump campaign filed suit in federal court, presented evidence to a federal district court, and got an expedited appeal. The court asked them about voter fraud. Trump's campaign said "this is not a fraud case."
/2
Wisconsin: the Trump campaign sued in federal court, got an evidentiary hearing and an expedited appeal. They did not allege any instances of voter fraud, they "objected only to the administration of the election," with arguments they should've raised before the election.
In honor of conservatives freaking out about @AOC's $58 made-in-USA, union-printed, 100% cotton "tax the rich," political fundraiser sweater, let's take a stroll through some of the crap they buy.
1. Official MAGA hat. Unknown materials. "Plastic snap closure." Excessively large font. American flag with 50-ish blobs connected by cheap stitch. Not union-made.
$30.
2. White House Gift Shop "TRUMP DEFEATS COVID" commemorative coin. "Features superhero motifs." "President Trump's defeat of COVID is heroic."
Says "Available and Now Shipping," but also "Pre-Order Ships Nov 14, 2020," and also "photo coming soon."
As predicted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated that strange Commonwealth Court opinion that purported to issue an injunction against the certified election results. Another loss for the Trump Team, and a reminder to vote in state court elections!
If you're celebrating the PA Supreme Court decision, take note: PA Republicans are also pushing a ballot measure to amend PA's Constitution so that appellate courts, including its Supreme Court, is no longer elected state-wide, but instead via gerrymandered districts. /2
For a PA constitutional amendment to go on the ballot, it must pass the legislature twice. HB 196 passed this July. It'll pass again next year and then go on the ballot.
Obviously, control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has national implications. /3