A new, real-world Israeli study shows the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is almost 90% effective at stopping COVID-19 transmission (not just symptoms) bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
This comes right on the heels of a Mayo Clinic study showing the same:
Granted, stopping transmission was always very likely, but it's good to have multiple confirmations. #LetsGo
This also supports the positions that 1) strict prioritization isn't essential (everyone is a possible vector); 2) getting vaccinated means you can ditch the mask, at least around people you know.
Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine Is Highly Effective After One Dose and Can Be Stored in Normal Freezers, Data Shows - WSJ wsj.com/articles/singl…
"The findings provide strong arguments in favor of delaying the second dose of the two-shot vaccine, as the U.K. has done. They could also have substantial implications on vaccine policy and distribution around the world, simplifying the logistics of distributing the vaccine."
"A single shot of the vaccine is 85% effective in preventing symptomatic disease 15 to 28 days after being administered, according to a peer-reviewed study conducted by the Israeli government-owned Sheba Medical Center and published in the Lancet medical journal."
Since a lot of ppl are reading this, lemme be clear: COVID-19 is real and dangerous, but the CDC itself, only a few days ago (& based on data), said schools cld be reopened w real & rigorous precautions (masking, distance, etc). And plenty of schools have done just this. (ctd)
To now tie reopening to funding for broader, longstanding issues - issues unrelated to the immediate, urgent need to reopen & that have not stopped many other schools from reopening safely - is a big problem (assuming, of course, that's what they're doing).
🚨My latest @CatoInstitute paper is out today🚨: "Manufactured Crisis: 'Deindustrialization,' Free Markets, and National Security" cato.org/publications/p…
It is VERY chart/data-rich (partially intended to be a longer-term resource).
Quick summary to follow (thread): /1
Both the left & right increasingly justify protectionism & industrial policy not on economic grounds, but on "national security" or "resiliency" ones - especially re China and COVID-19. Notable targets are semiconductors & medical goods, but there are plenty of others too /2
The usual claim: “free markets” & a lack of govt support for US manufacturing crippled the industrial base’s ability to supply “essential” goods during war, pandemic, or other emergency. We thus need big new govt actions (tariffs, subsidies, 'Buy American,' etc) to rebuild mfg /3