I can't tell you if I'm vaccinated. That would violate HIPAA rules.' What an Idiot!

[Loren Pechtel]

How is it personal if 100 people watched me get it?

It doesn't matter how many people know about it. It's personal medical information that is illegal for medical professionals to divulge.
Tom

Not just 'medical professionals', it's anyone involved with said entity...IT professionals included. That's a dozen plus years working on HR IT systems, as well as working in the IT shop of a medical insurance company, which all required annual refresher training. Fun with HIPAA, PHI, PII

This. They didn't used to be nearly as strict about training and the like but I've had to deal with medical records before and they made sure I knew the rules (and I was only seeing billing data, not the charts themselves.) Nowhere near the hoops that I understand apply these days but both of my parents were psychology teachers who sometimes provided help to students--I grew up knowing about the confidentiality of medical records. Not to mention that in IT you end up seeing things you never discuss without adequately anonymizing, also. (That wasn't spam, I know you're gay. I'm sure he never realized I knew and I never blew his cover.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not just 'medical professionals', it's anyone involved with said entity...IT professionals included. That's a dozen plus years working on HR IT systems, as well as working in the IT shop of a medical insurance company, which all required annual refresher training. Fun with HIPAA, PHI, PII

My sympathies.
I complete annual refresher training on
computer security (company),
computer security, (DoD)
other security (DoD)
HAZMAT,
and how to fill out my timesheet.

We covered PII once. Fun fun fun.

How long before there's refresher training on refresher training?

 

[Rhea]

% of Dems who have received at least their first covid vaccine shot: 86%
% of Repubs: 45%
Pretty slick point shaving, huh?

Now imagine an alternate timeline where Pfizer didn’t deliberately halt development to throw the election, the vaccine came out when expected, and Trump wins. Those numbers would be flipped.

They absolutely would not be. Why would you think that.
You think their dear leader would have embraced it? Changed his public statements on vaccination? You think the republicans would have jumped on it? And the democrats would have behaved differently than normal?

And you think Pfizer deliberately delayed?

Seriously on this stuff? Wow…. Wow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since I did not hide the fact I was getting the vaccine from them and they are not in a medical relationship with me they are free to say what they saw to anyone.

thsst's what we are saying, yes.

Who is this "we"?

That's not what some people are saying.

They are saying me getting a shot in public in front of people who do not have a professional relationship with me is a personal matter.

By getting the vaccine in public I have made it public knowledge.

When Biden got his shot in front of camera's he made the matter public.

Anybody can talk about it.

No. Most people can talk about it. Anyone who worked there who saw you can't confirm or deny. Anyone with access to the records from the place can neither confirm nor deny. It doesn't matter if 100 news cameras followed you in there, they still can't confirm or deny without a signed release from you.

 

[Rhea]

Anti-Vaxxers Feed Off Democrats' Skepticism of COVID Vaccine

From the article,

Kennedy, a lawyer and prominent anti-vaccine activist,

And one of the known 12 people who spew the most misinformation on the web,

said

Something completely false and misleading, and someone fell for it and thought it was real.

 

[Trausti]

% of Dems who have received at least their first covid vaccine shot: 86%
% of Repubs: 45%
Pretty slick point shaving, huh?

Now imagine an alternate timeline where Pfizer didn’t deliberately halt development to throw the election, the vaccine came out when expected, and Trump wins. Those numbers would be flipped.

They absolutely would not be. Why would you think that.
You think their dear leader would have embraced it? Changed his public statements on vaccination? You think the republicans would have jumped on it? And the democrats would have behaved differently than normal?

And you think Pfizer deliberately delayed?

Seriously on this stuff? Wow…. Wow.

Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is strongly effective, early data from large trial indicate

In their announcement of the results, Pfizer and BioNTech revealed a surprise. The companies said they had decided not to conduct the 32-case analysis “after a discussion with the FDA.” Instead, they planned to conduct the analysis after 62 cases. But by the time the plan had been formalized, there had been 94 cases of Covid-19 in the study. It’s not known how many were in the vaccine arm, but it would have to be nine or fewer.

Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday. When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of Covid in the trial. The DSMB met on Sunday.

This means that the statistical strength of the result is likely far stronger than was initially expected. It also means that if Pfizer had held to the original plan, the data would likely have been available in October, as its CEO, Albert Bourla, had initially predicted.

So the timeline was for the results by October. But they chose to stop the 32-case analysis testing in late October, leaving samples in storage, and then resumed the scheduled testing the Wednesday after the election. Yeah, that's a big fucking surprise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I hated security refreshers, as the Security Weenies generally annoyed me. Gee, why the fuck did I have to explain to one of these certified...idiot...Infosec types that it wouldn't be a good idea to just uninstall OpenSSL/OpenSSH even though we had to patch it several times a year. WTF...go back to telnet? Or maybe just take all the servers off the network? I also luved the 60 day changing 15+ char passwords, with at least one CAP, one Meta char, and one numeric. But oh, keyboard patterns are not a problem...security nitwits.

Those password rules should be nuked from orbit.

Two things count: The entropy of the password and how hard it will be to remember. (Hard to remember = written down.) It does not matter how that entropy is obtained, pure-alpha, pure-lowercase is fine if you just make it longer. Requiring a cap generally gets the first letter capped, or sometimes the first letter of each word. While in theory you added a bunch of entropy you didn't really add much at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anybody not subject to HIPAA.

No--anyone with no access to that health information. A HIPAA-covered person can still talk about something they learned while not acting in their HIPAA-covered role. If my wife was in the same line and saw him get the shot she's free to say so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The people who define HIPAA rules and PMI, with respect to HIPAA, say it's PMI. I do not understand the difficulty, here.
But, hey, you know, at some point you just gotta say, if it's that important to you that 2+2=5, you do you.

I don't understand your difficulty.

Public acknowledgement of something makes it not personal information.

2 + 2 = 4

Nope. Without a release they can still neither confirm nor deny. Every so often we see cases in the news where someone is proclaiming something happened and the medical facility (or occasionally the police) just says they're not allowed to say anything. I've seen it happen in cases where the public "acknowledgement" was obviously false.

(Personally, this is an aspect of the law I would like to see changed--making a public claim about something HIPAA-protected should allow the release of a minimum rebuttal.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

% of Dems who have received at least their first covid vaccine shot: 86%
% of Repubs: 45%
Pretty slick point shaving, huh?

Now imagine an alternate timeline where Pfizer didn’t deliberately halt development to throw the election, the vaccine came out when expected, and Trump wins. Those numbers would be flipped.

Halt development? What are you smoking??

Besides, the development was over long before the election. My memory is that the "development" of the Pfizer vaccine took two days--pasting a new code into the candidate SARS vaccine. Everything past that was simply testing.

 

[Trausti]

% of Dems who have received at least their first covid vaccine shot: 86%
% of Repubs: 45%
Pretty slick point shaving, huh?

Now imagine an alternate timeline where Pfizer didn’t deliberately halt development to throw the election, the vaccine came out when expected, and Trump wins. Those numbers would be flipped.

Halt development? What are you smoking??

Besides, the development was over long before the election. My memory is that the "development" of the Pfizer vaccine took two days--pasting a new code into the candidate SARS vaccine. Everything past that was simply testing.

Look up a few posts. Pfizer halted testing in late October - which was against its own timeline - then resumed the day after the election. This should be a pretty big news story, but the media got the election result it wanted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They absolutely would not be. Why would you think that.
You think their dear leader would have embraced it? Changed his public statements on vaccination? You think the republicans would have jumped on it? And the democrats would have behaved differently than normal?

And you think Pfizer deliberately delayed?

Seriously on this stuff? Wow…. Wow.

Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech is strongly effective, early data from large trial indicate

In their announcement of the results, Pfizer and BioNTech revealed a surprise. The companies said they had decided not to conduct the 32-case analysis “after a discussion with the FDA.” Instead, they planned to conduct the analysis after 62 cases. But by the time the plan had been formalized, there had been 94 cases of Covid-19 in the study. It’s not known how many were in the vaccine arm, but it would have to be nine or fewer.

Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday. When the samples were tested, there were 94 cases of Covid in the trial. The DSMB met on Sunday.

This means that the statistical strength of the result is likely far stronger than was initially expected. It also means that if Pfizer had held to the original plan, the data would likely have been available in October, as its CEO, Albert Bourla, had initially predicted.

So the timeline was for the results by October. But they chose to stop the 32-case analysis testing in late October, leaving samples in storage, and then resumed the scheduled testing the Wednesday after the election. Yeah, that's a big fucking surprise.

I don't know the details but this sounds like a case of overtaken by events.

An interim analysis is normally about detect abject failures and stopping the test. A good result would not result in faster approval.

 

[untermensche]

The people who define HIPAA rules and PMI, with respect to HIPAA, say it's PMI. I do not understand the difficulty, here.
But, hey, you know, at some point you just gotta say, if it's that important to you that 2+2=5, you do you.

I don't understand your difficulty.

Public acknowledgement of something makes it not personal information.

2 + 2 = 4

Nope. Without a release they can still neither confirm nor deny. Every so often we see cases in the news where someone is proclaiming something happened and the medical facility (or occasionally the police) just says they're not allowed to say anything. I've seen it happen in cases where the public "acknowledgement" was obviously false.

(Personally, this is an aspect of the law I would like to see changed--making a public claim about something HIPAA-protected should allow the release of a minimum rebuttal.)

Baloney.

After watching it on TV any doctor in the world can say Biden got the vaccine.

It is not personal information.

It is public knowledge.

 

[ZiprHead]

Halt development? What are you smoking??

Besides, the development was over long before the election. My memory is that the "development" of the Pfizer vaccine took two days--pasting a new code into the candidate SARS vaccine. Everything past that was simply testing.

Look up a few posts. Pfizer halted testing in late October - which was against its own timeline - then resumed the day after the election. This should be a pretty big news story, but the media got the election result it wanted.

I;m not finding anything about Pfizer halting testing in October. J&J did so in October due to a test participant getting ill. Got a link about Pfizer?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Halt development? What are you smoking??

Besides, the development was over long before the election. My memory is that the "development" of the Pfizer vaccine took two days--pasting a new code into the candidate SARS vaccine. Everything past that was simply testing.

Look up a few posts. Pfizer halted testing in late October - which was against its own timeline - then resumed the day after the election. This should be a pretty big news story, but the media got the election result it wanted.

I;m not finding anything about Pfizer halting testing in October. J&J did so in October due to a test participant getting ill. Got a link about Pfizer?

Based on the info, I read that 32-case number was increased to 62-case, likely because they wanted a better idea as to the required number of doses for the vaccine via a larger pool. One typically wants more data when timelines have been cut.

After discussion with the FDA, the companies recently elected to drop the 32-case interim analysis and conduct the first interim analysis at a minimum of 62 cases. Upon the conclusion of those discussions, the evaluable case count reached 94 and the DMC performed its first analysis on all cases. The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%, at 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of a 2-dose schedule. As the study continues, the final vaccine efficacy percentage may vary. The DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns and recommends that the study continue to collect additional safety and efficacy data as planned. The data will be discussed with regulatory authorities worldwide.

 

[ZiprHead]

I;m not finding anything about Pfizer halting testing in October. J&J did so in October due to a test participant getting ill. Got a link about Pfizer?

Based on the info, I read that 32-case number was increased to 62-case, likely because they wanted a better idea as to the required number of doses for the vaccine via a larger pool. One typically wants more data when timelines have been cut.

After discussion with the FDA, the companies recently elected to drop the 32-case interim analysis and conduct the first interim analysis at a minimum of 62 cases. Upon the conclusion of those discussions, the evaluable case count reached 94 and the DMC performed its first analysis on all cases. The case split between vaccinated individuals and those who received the placebo indicates a vaccine efficacy rate above 90%, at 7 days after the second dose. This means that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of a 2-dose schedule. As the study continues, the final vaccine efficacy percentage may vary. The DMC has not reported any serious safety concerns and recommends that the study continue to collect additional safety and efficacy data as planned. The data will be discussed with regulatory authorities worldwide.

So they didn't actually halt the trials but expanded them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Based on the info, I read that 32-case number was increased to 62-case, likely because they wanted a better idea as to the required number of doses for the vaccine via a larger pool. One typically wants more data when timelines have been cut.

So they didn't actually halt the trials but expanded them?

From how I read it, someone can correct me, they decided to set a higher threshold for number of cases from 32 to 62. One wouldn't need to quit anything to do that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Based on the info, I read that 32-case number was increased to 62-case, likely because they wanted a better idea as to the required number of doses for the vaccine via a larger pool. One typically wants more data when timelines have been cut.

So they didn't actually halt the trials but expanded them?

From how I read it, someone can correct me, they decided to set a higher threshold for number of cases from 32 to 62. One wouldn't need to quit anything to do that.

That's how I read it too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From how I read it, someone can correct me, they decided to set a higher threshold for number of cases from 32 to 62. One wouldn't need to quit anything to do that.

That's how I read it too.

And just to hit the point home, from the article Trausti didn't read, and backs up my cursory interpretation.

That study design {32-case number}, as well as those of other drug makers, came under fire from experts who worried that, even if it was statistically valid, these interim analyses would not provide enough data when a vaccine could be given to billions of people.

So, due to the number of people to be vaccinated, there was consensus in the industry that 32 wasn't high enough. They did pause testing, but come very early November, the number of contractions was just under 100. So the amount of time to make conclusions before the election wasn't really there. The decision to break from the 32-threshold was very sound in light of how widespread the vaccination program would be.

 

[Rhea]

And just to hit the point home, from the article Trausti didn't read, and backs up my cursory interpretation.

[…]
So, due to the number of people to be vaccinated, there was consensus in the industry that 32 wasn't high enough. They did pause testing, but come very early November, the number of contractions was just under 100. So the amount of time to make conclusions before the election wasn't really there. The decision to break from the 32-threshold was very sound in light of how widespread the vaccination program would be.

But! But! Conspiracy!