The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: HPstache on November 30, 2020, 09:49:08 AM
-
I am starting to see a bunch of COVID vaccine skepticism, and I am confused as to who exactly these people are. I've seen it here on this forum, I see it in my news feed almost every day and I am now reading about demonstrations by activist groups in my county, every US state, Canada and Australia. I have seen polls that say 40+% of people seem to not want to take the COVID vaccine if approved and available.
I cannot tell if it's just the usual anti-vaxxers, possibly the usual anti vaxxers plus a whole bunch of people who lean one way or the other politically, maybe some really smart people who know more than the scientists, or just some random assortment of people who are skeptical that are too difficult to put in a box. Sometimes I can swear it's people who lean right for their reasons (COVID is a hoax, this is just Bill Gates' master plan, it's just the common cold / flu, they can't tell us what to do!, etc.), and I other times I swear it's people who lean left for their reasons (Trump cannot be credited for a "win" by fast tracking, we said it was going to take a long time and now we seem wrong, this should happen on Biden's watch, etc). Help me wrap my head around what's going on here... shouldn't the world be thrilled that we have the ability to vaccinate for this pandemic? What is the most likely the makeup of this group?
-
I think it’s a mix of anti-vaxxers, people that think COVID is a hoax, and people who are concerned that the vaccine is rushed and may have at this time unknowable long term side effects.
The third group is making a reasonable argument, and perhaps with more education about the development process and what’s in the vaccine would choose to get it. Not sure what can be done about the first two groups to convince them to get vaccinated.
-
The only reason I've heard from "real" people (that I actually know) is that they don't trust a vaccine that was developed so fast, and can't believe that it will be safe because we've bypassed all the safety measures.
-
The only reason I've heard from "real" people (that I actually know) is that they don't trust a vaccine that was developed so fast, and can't believe that it will be safe because we've bypassed all the safety measures.
Are those who say it was developed too fast left or right on the spectrum, or mixed? I tend to hear that more from the left... but not sure if that's just in my circles.
-
The only reason I've heard from "real" people (that I actually know) is that they don't trust a vaccine that was developed so fast, and can't believe that it will be safe because we've bypassed all the safety measures.
Are those who say it was developed too fast left or right on the spectrum, or mixed? I tend to hear that more from the left... but not sure if that's just in my circles.
I hear the same, and I hear it from all across the political spectrum.
-
The only reason I've heard from "real" people (that I actually know) is that they don't trust a vaccine that was developed so fast, and can't believe that it will be safe because we've bypassed all the safety measures.
Are those who say it was developed too fast left or right on the spectrum, or mixed? I tend to hear that more from the left... but not sure if that's just in my circles.
I hear the same, and I hear it from all across the political spectrum.
Ok, I have added and option for "Anti Vaxxers + It's happening too Fasters (not politically affiliated)". And I think I may have invented a new phrase at the same time ha ha
-
The only reason I've heard from "real" people (that I actually know) is that they don't trust a vaccine that was developed so fast, and can't believe that it will be safe because we've bypassed all the safety measures.
Are those who say it was developed too fast left or right on the spectrum, or mixed? I tend to hear that more from the left... but not sure if that's just in my circles.
I have no idea - I don't tend to talk politics with my friends. I'd guess most are right in the middle. Some are right-leaning.
-
I have no desire to be first in line for a vaccine because of the rapid development. That works out because as someone who isn't high risk I wouldn't be able to be first in line anyway.
Once the high risk individuals all have a 90+% effective vaccine then it's less about lowering the risk to society as a whole and more about comparing the risk of Covid to me personally vs the potential side effects from a vaccine to me personally. At this point, I'm leaning towards getting a vaccine at some point but not immediately.
-
Qanon; a health-conscious, enviro left winger we know went this route.
Also, vaccine hesitants may be older adults (our friends 55+) who aren't sure new technology (mRNA) will prove safe for whole population over long-term (remembering thalidomide etc.), or who don't understand prior work on similar vaccines (SARS, ebola etc), safety protocols not skipped for speed, but removing funding / grant application cycles, company trade-offs for profitability and doing parallel manufacturing due to purchase guarantees gains a lot of speed overall.
FTR, I tend to be hesitant because I'm awaiting broader info on ADE, may have had virus early in year (but no good serology tests available), and can easily isolate longer / am in a lowish risk group...
-
I have no desire to be first in line for a vaccine because of the rapid development. That works out because as someone who isn't high risk I wouldn't be able to be first in line anyway.
Yep. By the time I'm due for the vaccine, we'll know if there are any longish-term adverse reactions.
-
Not an anti-vaxxer, not a covid disbeliever.........won't be getting a vaccine until there is more research, time to see the side effects, longer term impact. Call me a skeptic that for profit companies aren't cutting corners to get something to market asap.
-
If it's true that "happening to fast-ers" are not politically affiliated, it's going to be really awkward at these anti vaccine rallies coming up to have equal representation from the left and right all rallying for the same thing... does that ever happen? Are we sure this stance is non partisan? I really want to go to one just to see if there is actually open carriers / MAGA hats and (insert political left stereotype here) living and chanting in harmony...
-
Not an anti-vaxxer, not a covid disbeliever.........won't be getting a vaccine until there is more research, time to see the side effects, longer term impact. Call me a skeptic that for profit companies aren't cutting corners to get something to market asap.
Aren't those three of the corner stones of anti vaxxers though? Concerns about side effects, long term impact, and being skeptical about for profit companies?
-
People worried about mRNA vaccines, and their storage requirements, can ask for the Oxford vaccine which is more traditional tech and refrigerator storage, not freezer or extreme freezer temps. I'm hoping to go Oxford half dose/whole dose/booster, the test results are excellent. I should be in round 3 (age) after essential workers (including grocery store workers and the whole food distribution group as well as all health care and emergency services workers), and the really vulnerable.
The North American MMR vaccine seems to give some cross protection from the mumps portion. I never had symptomatic mumps although my sister had it when we were both kids. I'm so tempted to ask to get a booster for it.
-
If it's true that "happening to fast-ers" are not politically affiliated, it's going to be really awkward at these anti vaccine rallies coming up to have equal representation from the left and right all rallying for the same thing... does that ever happen? Are we sure this stance is non partisan? I really want to go to one just to see if there is actually open carriers / MAGA hats and (insert political left stereotype here) living and chanting in harmony...
There are a wide range of beliefs from both the right and left end of the political spectrum. My guess is that more of the "wait and see" or "definitely not getting the vaccine" folks are politically conservative. But, there are probably a decent amount of liberals who will also wait. After all, being skeptical of for profit companies is a cornerstone of liberals, right?
-
Not an anti-vaxxer, not a covid disbeliever.........won't be getting a vaccine until there is more research, time to see the side effects, longer term impact. Call me a skeptic that for profit companies aren't cutting corners to get something to market asap.
Aren't those three of the corner stones of anti vaxxers though? Concerns about side effects, long term impact, and being skeptical about for profit companies?
I guess they could be but are not the anti vaxxers opposing all vaccines?
I am currently in the too fast lane but I am not first in line so in 6-7 months when it is my turn we should have a pretty good idea of the side effects and then it might be a nonissue. I am not skeptical in general about for profit companies because there are procedures for approval. I am more sceptical if those are followed as normally.
I have basically taken all vaccines available because I like to travel and prefer not to get some bug as a souvenir. Before a trip to a area of malaria I actually tried one of the more popular malariadrugs and got side effects so I had to change the preventive medecine.
-
In regards to it being developed "too fast" I found these graphics from the NTY to be really informative. They show that steps in the process weren't actually skipped, but several steps were completed simultaneously with others, particularly the steps like "building factories". They've also still gone through all 3 clinical trials, they've just overlapped them instead of having a set end of the first before starting the second, etc.
-
I'm kind of neutral on it myself, but it seems like there's some concern about immunity not lasting very long due to the nature of COVID. I can still see the value of it for people who would die or be really harmed by catching it, but as a healthy person with no risk factors, I don't really see myself going to the doctor's office every few months and exposing myself to all the sick people there every single time just to avoid what would basically be a bad cold for me. If it was one shot and done, sure, no problem.
-
I am in the, would like to get vaccine but I don't want to be one of the first groups getting it. Does that make me pro vaccine or too fast vaxxers? I think that once the high risk groups are vaccinated, no or minimal side effectsvare seen, that a greater number of people will be in line to get the vaccine.
-
I'm kind of neutral on it myself, but it seems like there's some concern about immunity not lasting very long due to the nature of COVID. I can still see the value of it for people who would die or be really harmed by catching it, but as a healthy person with no risk factors, I don't really see myself going to the doctor's office every few months and exposing myself to all the sick people there every single time just to avoid what would basically be a bad cold for me. If it was one shot and done, sure, no problem.
even the flu shot is not done that way. Have to get it annually to have benefit. It's possible covid vaccine might need to be every 6 months. Some people go to the dentist every 6 months. I don't like it, but it's good for my health.
-
In regards to it being developed "too fast" I found these graphics from the NTY to be really informative. They show that steps in the process weren't actually skipped, but several steps were completed simultaneously with others, particularly the steps like "building factories". They've also still gone through all 3 clinical trials, they've just overlapped them instead of having a set end of the first before starting the second, etc.
Those are somewhat misleading graphics.
Parallelism can definitely reduce some of the wait for a new vaccine . . . but the graphics you're showing don't indicate the fact that the stage III trails are being radically shortened over normal procedure. Stage III trials typically last 1-4 years (https://www.clinicaltrialsandme.com/resources/how-long-do-clinical-trials-take.html (https://www.clinicaltrialsandme.com/resources/how-long-do-clinical-trials-take.html), https://www.antidote.me/blog/how-long-do-clinical-trial-phases-take (https://www.antidote.me/blog/how-long-do-clinical-trial-phases-take), etc). That's just for the trials, on their own. Covid stage III trials are being done in a matter of months. This is typically the stage where long term effects of the vaccine are uncovered.
(This is assuming that a vaccine is completed phase III clinical trials before it is being distributed . . . and the US has said it will begin distributing in Jan. The parallelism timeline simply doesn't add up. Phase III vaccine tests could not have started Jan of last year before there was acceptance of a real problem.)
-
I'm kind of neutral on it myself, but it seems like there's some concern about immunity not lasting very long due to the nature of COVID. I can still see the value of it for people who would die or be really harmed by catching it, but as a healthy person with no risk factors, I don't really see myself going to the doctor's office every few months and exposing myself to all the sick people there every single time just to avoid what would basically be a bad cold for me. If it was one shot and done, sure, no problem.
even the flu shot is not done that way. Have to get it annually to have benefit. It's possible covid vaccine might need to be every 6 months. Some people go to the dentist every 6 months. I don't like it, but it's good for my health.
I don't get the flu shot either. I generally stick with only getting vaccines for things that will kill me or fuck me up badly. I go to the dentist every six months, but I sure as shit wouldn't if the only consequence of not going was I might get essentially a bad case of the flu. Again, this is as a person with no risk factors or exposure to vulnerable people, so no applicable to everyone.
-
In regards to it being developed "too fast" I found these graphics from the NTY to be really informative. They show that steps in the process weren't actually skipped, but several steps were completed simultaneously with others, particularly the steps like "building factories". They've also still gone through all 3 clinical trials, they've just overlapped them instead of having a set end of the first before starting the second, etc.
Unless researchers never check back in on the phase I/II/III subjects during the "building factories" phase, these charts seem a bit disingenuous.
-
I won't be in the first groups offered the vaccine. When it is an option for me, I plan to ask my doctor. I would hope that someone in the large group of medical professionals will have read all the studies and figured out who should/should not get the vaccines, known potential side effects, etc. Assuming it's ok, I would like to not have to worry so much about covid.
There's a chance my mom legit can't get the vaccine. My dad may/may not have had a poor reaction to the flu shot, it's really hard to tell because they at least haven't communicated what happened. But they associated an issue with the flu shot at least, so they're hesitant. And very uninformed though they think they aren't.
I understand the worries about the fast turnaround. I also have serious worries about long term effects of getting covid. There's risk either way, so you need to judge the risk of getting a new vaccine vs. getting covid.
-
If it's true that "happening to fast-ers" are not politically affiliated, it's going to be really awkward at these anti vaccine rallies coming up to have equal representation from the left and right all rallying for the same thing... does that ever happen? Are we sure this stance is non partisan? I really want to go to one just to see if there is actually open carriers / MAGA hats and (insert political left stereotype here) living and chanting in harmony...
Why would the "happening too fast-ers" attend a rally? These are people who are looking at what's going on, deciding it's not for them right now, and opting out. They don't have anything to rally over.
I'm kind of neutral on it myself, but it seems like there's some concern about immunity not lasting very long due to the nature of COVID. I can still see the value of it for people who would die or be really harmed by catching it, but as a healthy person with no risk factors, I don't really see myself going to the doctor's office every few months and exposing myself to all the sick people there every single time just to avoid what would basically be a bad cold for me. If it was one shot and done, sure, no problem.
I thought we were going to be able to get it at pharmacies, like the flu vaccine? Nothing I have heard locally about distribution indicates that I'll have to go sit in a doctor's office, but I guess we'll see what happens when it's my turn (I'll be in the last group anyway).
I'm planning to get the vaccine (after reading all the available information/talking to my doctor). Even though I'm healthy with no risk factors, I have a younger friend who got it (also healthy with no risk factors), and now might have heart damage for the rest of her life. I'd like to do my best to prevent that possibility for myself.
-
My wife and I are able to WFH and continue sheltering in place for the foreseeable future, so we are not rushing to get the vaccine. Our plan is to get the vaccine once it’s available to us and several regulatory agencies from different nations have approved it for distribution. I think that safeguards us from any concerns about rushed clinical trials.
-
So, I know two people who do not work for the drug companies but do have jobs where they are very informed about this vaccine development. (One of the works at NIH.) Both feel that there have not been corners cut. The “template” for this vaccine was already developed and as soon as they had the DNA sequence, in January, they could start trials. Manufacturing is underway. Test flights have been made for shipping.
Which vaccine is available to you will depend at least at first on where you live, because the infrastructure is in place for certain vaccines to go to different areas.
I am pretty comfortable with this. I’d roll up my sleeve tomorrow.
-
I'm kind of neutral on it myself, but it seems like there's some concern about immunity not lasting very long due to the nature of COVID. I can still see the value of it for people who would die or be really harmed by catching it, but as a healthy person with no risk factors, I don't really see myself going to the doctor's office every few months and exposing myself to all the sick people there every single time just to avoid what would basically be a bad cold for me. If it was one shot and done, sure, no problem.
even the flu shot is not done that way. Have to get it annually to have benefit. It's possible covid vaccine might need to be every 6 months. Some people go to the dentist every 6 months. I don't like it, but it's good for my health.
I don't get the flu shot either. I generally stick with only getting vaccines for things that will kill me or fuck me up badly. I go to the dentist every six months, but I sure as shit wouldn't if the only consequence of not going was I might get essentially a bad case of the flu. Again, this is as a person with no risk factors or exposure to vulnerable people, so no applicable to everyone.
Immunity to SARS and MERS, which are very similar corona viruses to the Covid-19 virus, is still present in people who had those viruses. So the likelihood is that immunity will be long-lasting.
I expect that down the road this will be one more childhood vaccine.
-
I'll probably be in one of the first groups after health care workers and high-risk folks to get the vaccine, so I'll let you all know what happens!
There's a difference between "wait and see" and "never ever, vaccines are the devil!" The former will sit at home, while the latter will be out on the streets screaming. It would be an interesting Venn diagram of political affiliation and opinions on the vaccine. You've got never-vaxxers in both parties, probably have "too sooners" in both parties, and a hefty population of "it's a Dem hoax, and you're oppressing me!" on the right. It would be funny to see a bi-partisan anti-vax rally when on any other occasion those two groups would be at each other's throats.
-
Is everything really that partisan in the US that it's unheard of to have a bipartisan protest?
Like, absolutely nothing brings both sides together? That's a totally alien concept?
-
Is everything really that partisan in the US that it's unheard of to have a bipartisan protest?
Like, absolutely nothing brings both sides together? That's a totally alien concept?
Very rare, and pretty much unheard of since Obama was elected. A number of Republicans have run on the very idea that they would never compromise.
-
Is everything really that partisan in the US that it's unheard of to have a bipartisan protest?
Like, absolutely nothing brings both sides together? That's a totally alien concept?
It’s uncommon. The political divide has been progressively more pronounced and continues to become more pronounced. I trace the modern vicious divide to Senate Democrats breaking a lot the norms with the Robert Bork nomination for Supreme Court in 1987. It was so bad, it literally resulted in the term “borked” becoming a way to express what happened. Since then, we’ve seen an increasingly ad hominem and vicious escalation for decades. This escalation has led to a generation of Americans growing up believing vicious partisanship is normal. Our political elites behavior has become instilled in the behaviors of people all over.
Mind you, Americans easily come together on local issues.
-
Is everything really that partisan in the US that it's unheard of to have a bipartisan protest?
Like, absolutely nothing brings both sides together? That's a totally alien concept?
Very rare, and pretty much unheard of since Obama was elected. A number of Republicans have run on the very idea that they would never compromise.
McConnell's position of running the Senate was predicated on him being a pain in the ass to the Democrats. Trump went into this campaign riding high on calling Democrats 'terrorists' and 'the enemy.' Most Republicans in the past were content just implying it. Biden hasn't taken office yet, but now that it looks certain, the far-right Republicans are already beating the drum that the world is about to end because this Democrat is about to do Democrat things. You see more ads describing why the other side sucks than why your idea is better. Our political system has morphed into division being a prerequisite for getting elected. Reaching across the aisle gets used against you during election season if what you did wasn't an absolute home run hit for your side.
9/11 brought us together, but that only lasted about a year when the focus shifted to Iraq. I can't think of any particular issue where we have common ground across political lines.
-
In my circles, the vaccine skeptics are people on the left that don't trust a vaccine approved in such a quick fashion by Trump's FDA.
-
Not an anti-vaxxer, not a covid disbeliever.........won't be getting a vaccine until there is more research, time to see the side effects, longer term impact. Call me a skeptic that for profit companies aren't cutting corners to get something to market asap.
My reply to this would be that SARS-CoV-2 is a relatively known risk now. You are trading off a very real risk with a hand-wavey maybe risk. Also, Oxford has been working on their vaccine for years. Do you really think that Oxford is trying to fuck you?
-
FWIW:
---------------------------------------
Long term effects of the COVID19 vaccine.
Lots of concern about this. And justifiably so given this is a new type of vaccine. Here is some vaccine history and why, at least, I’m not concerned about long term effects. I hope this helps you make a data informed decision.
The mRNA vaccine technology (I’ll call it biotechnology) is not new for COVID19. We were able to get to this point quickly because this vaccine has been in the making for years. It was first developed during the 2003 SARS outbreak. Scientists were able to adjust the vaccine they had been creating back then (vaccine development stopped when funding ended) to prime it specifically for COVID19. In addition, various companies have tried to make mRNA vaccines over the last 5 years (mostly for Ebola, Zika, rabies and HIV, but also for cancer and allergies). Many, many non-COVID related randomized control trials are going on as we speak.
The biotechnology has never been approved by the FDA before. It’s NOT because the past mRNA vaccines have been deemed unsafe. It’s because past mRNA vaccines haven’t been very effective. One of the main issues has been figuring out a way to get the vaccine to the cells effectively. mRNA breaks down VERY quickly, so it needs to be transported by something. Finding that something has been a challenge. As I mentioned yesterday, though, scientists tried fat bubbles for COVID19. These have worked seemingly well.
A mRNA vaccine is actually safer for us compared to traditional vaccines. mRNA vaccines are not made up of the actual pathogen. This means that, unlike traditional vaccines, they don't contain weakened, dead, or noninfectious parts of a virus. They contain only the instruction manuals to tell cells how to fight COVID19. They are not produced using infectious elements. Also, because RNA quickly degrades in the body, it cannot insert itself into human DNA (since it cannot reverse transcribe itself). Unlike DNA vaccines (there are currently no DNA vaccines approved for human use, but there are many in clinical trials and there are some approved for veterinary medicine) mRNA does not enter a cells nucleus and so there is no potential for integration into the host DNA.
While we do not currently have long term data, based on our knowledge of RNA, we do not expect long term side effects. But, as much as it kills me, I cannot say, with 100% certainty, that latent side effects won’t pop up in a few years. The main side effects expected are the short term side effects caused by the fat bubbles. We know the mRNA doesn’t cause the short term side effects because we tested these fat bubbles on primates without the mRNA in them and saw the same exact side effects.
Knowing all that...
I will be getting the vaccine as soon as its my turn. I have confidence in the science and I have confidence in the thousands of people that have been working on this biotechnology for the past decade. I will get it for myself and the greater good. And, honestly, I’m more concerned about the possible long term organ damage done by COVID19 infection than any expected risk from the mRNA vaccines.
Love, YLE
Data Sources:
I consulted a few sources for the majority of this information. Most importantly... two brilliant fellow followers who work in medical education and biosafety at the National Institute of Health. I also found this site very informative: https://www.phgfoundation.org/briefing/rna-vaccines
---------------------------------------
-
If it's true that "happening to fast-ers" are not politically affiliated, it's going to be really awkward at these anti vaccine rallies coming up to have equal representation from the left and right all rallying for the same thing... does that ever happen? Are we sure this stance is non partisan? I really want to go to one just to see if there is actually open carriers / MAGA hats and (insert political left stereotype here) living and chanting in harmony...
The thing is that those too-fast people (which include me) are not going to any rally as long as you don't try to make vaccination mandatory (right from the start) for everyone which won't happen anyway since there is not enough.
The chance that something really bad turns up in a year or so is very small, so I am not very concerned about it, but with medicine and vaccines, everything can happen. And has in the past. So I won't rush. But I will get it eventually when my turn comes around (probably the last batch of people except children) and this virus is still a thing by that time.
I do have a bit of a problem with e.g. nurses or teachers. For them the risk/profit calculation is a lot better towards the vaccine than for e.g. me working home office and not being a type to meet people, so I have been basically a shut in for most of the time (does not mean I don't go for a walk, just meetings with several people are rare, worst risk is shopping)
I thought we were going to be able to get it at pharmacies, like the flu vaccine? Nothing I have heard locally about distribution indicates that I'll have to go sit in a doctor's office
I think in most countries you don't get shots at a pharmacy. But there have been dicussions here (Germany) to allow it. The personal still would need the training/permission for it, which seems unlikely since they never needed it before.
-
I thought we were going to be able to get it at pharmacies, like the flu vaccine? Nothing I have heard locally about distribution indicates that I'll have to go sit in a doctor's office
I think in most countries you don't get shots at a pharmacy. But there have been dicussions here (Germany) to allow it. The personal still would need the training/permission for it, which seems unlikely since they never needed it before.
In the US, we can get flu shots at the pharmacy. I think earlier in the pandemic, pharmacies were given emergency authorization to give some childhood vaccines also, to avoid delays in vaccination schedules.
-
In Ontario (Canada) we can get flu shots at a pharmacy, but public health sets up clinics that can handle many people. I got my flu shot last week at a clinic set up by Ottawa Public Health. Of course everything was spaced out because of Covid, and we were all masked and there was hand sanitizer everywhere. Appointments were at 20 minute intervals, there were 12 stations for vaccination once your paperwork was done, and widely separated wait stations for the 15 minutes after vaccination. It worked really smoothly. For me it was preferable to going to a pharmacy where the main focus is not on vaccinations. I've had my flu vaccine at pharmacies before, but this year a clinic was my preferred choice.
-
For those worried about going to the doctor for this, I got my flu shot from my pcp in October and was exposed to far fewer people than if I had gone to a pharmacy. I made an appointment ahead of time, and upon arrival you have to call the reception desk from outside the office. They ask you screening questions and then allow you in when they are ready for you. There was no one else in the waiting room and I went in directly to have the shot administered. The whole thing took less than ten minutes. I saw only the reception desk staff and the doctor administering the shot. We all wore masks. There was no waiting around like you usually have to do in a pharmacy or Costco etc.
-
Is everything really that partisan in the US that it's unheard of to have a bipartisan protest?
Like, absolutely nothing brings both sides together? That's a totally alien concept?
College Football. Maybe...
-
In my circles, the vaccine skeptics are people on the left that don't trust a vaccine approved in such a quick fashion by Trump's FDA.
This is interesting because this is also my experience, hence why I suggested it as the "left's" sentiment in the original post. That's also why I am fascinated that I am hearing people think that's a non-partisan opinion. I thought the Anti Vaxxers + Left / Far Left covered this sentiment, but I am interested to see that hardly anyone is choosing that and instead the Anti Vaxxers + It's Happening too fast-ers (non partisan) is getting all the votes.
-
In my circles, the vaccine skeptics are people on the left that don't trust a vaccine approved in such a quick fashion by Trump's FDA.
This is interesting because this is also my experience, hence why I suggested it as the "left's" sentiment in the original post. That's also why I am fascinated that I am hearing people think that's a non-partisan opinion. I thought the Anti Vaxxers + Left / Far Left covered this sentiment, but I am interested to see that hardly anyone is choosing that and instead the Anti Vaxxers + It's Happening too fast-ers (non partisan) is getting all the votes.
The FDA under Trump's administration did at one point say that they were fine with skipping the phase III trials entirely and just giving people the vaccine on a wing and a prayer. That doesn't engender confidence in safety.
-
I am starting to see a bunch of COVID vaccine skepticism, and I am confused as to who exactly these people are. I've seen it here on this forum, I see it in my news feed almost every day and I am now reading about demonstrations by activist groups in my county, every US state, Canada and Australia. I have seen polls that say 40+% of people seem to not want to take the COVID vaccine if approved and available.
I cannot tell if it's just the usual anti-vaxxers, possibly the usual anti vaxxers plus a whole bunch of people who lean one way or the other politically, maybe some really smart people who know more than the scientists, or just some random assortment of people who are skeptical that are too difficult to put in a box. Sometimes I can swear it's people who lean right for their reasons (COVID is a hoax, this is just Bill Gates' master plan, it's just the common cold / flu, they can't tell us what to do!, etc.), and I other times I swear it's people who lean left for their reasons (Trump cannot be credited for a "win" by fast tracking, we said it was going to take a long time and now we seem wrong, this should happen on Biden's watch, etc). Help me wrap my head around what's going on here... shouldn't the world be thrilled that we have the ability to vaccinate for this pandemic? What is the most likely the makeup of this group?
I haven't paid much attention to vaccine skeptics but as of now my sense of them is that they are disparate so I voted for A hodge podge of people that is too hard to distinguish.
-
The subset of people I talk to who are hesitant about a vaccine are all down to the timeline. I suspect that is a biased sample ... people who are anti-vax or this it is a hoax, for those reasons or others, are probably people I don't have serious conversation with all-too-often.
The folks I have talked to are mostly in the center/center-left/center-right. For them it all comes down to how fast the vaccine was developed and therefore the lack of long term data. Some of them would rather wait for another vaccine produced with a method with a longer track record; their concern is centered around a vaccine method that has never been approved before and the earliest trials that they have mentioned date only to 2017.
Most of them acknowledge that a vaccine is the only or only good way through the pandemic. Some of them seem torn because they recognize that if everyone waits a vaccine will have no impact on the course of events.
None of them are going to avid the vaccine forever. And some of them are going to get it as early as they can, despite their concerns. Some are more concerned about Covid rates in their area or their risk factors, others think due to their age they are less likely to live to see long term issues, and then a couple are going to get it because well it is the best way past this outbreak and that needs enough people.
-
I’m curious as to how we’ll be notified when we can get it. If you’ve got high risk factors do you get some sort of ticket to take to the vaccine clinic?
-
The subset of people I talk to who are hesitant about a vaccine are all down to the timeline. I suspect that is a biased sample ... people who are anti-vax or this it is a hoax, for those reasons or others, are probably people I don't have serious conversation with all-too-often.
Exactly.
The loons on the alt-right boards are worried about Big Pharma working with Bill Gates and George Soros to make a "vaccine" that will track us with nanobots. (No shit.) They also often believe that covid was created in a lab for this very purpose.
https://slate.com/technology/2020/05/microchips-bill-gates-track-people-vaccine.html
-
I guess I fall on the other side of the "too-fast" people. I jumped at the first chance to get into the clinical trials. But I'm also one who volunteered to cover our Covid tent in the spring when this all started. I was willing to work anywhere, as long as I had adequate PPE. I guess this is also a mini-PSA: PPE and hand-washing works! I've been in close contact with innumerable covid+ patients, been coughed, spit, puked on from these patients, and through 8 months, still covid negative!
I'm in one of the clinical trials now and received the shot awhile ago. I'm about 99% certain I received the placebo though. Bummer. I felt nothing when the shot when in and no soreness or tenderness in the area of the shot afterwards. With the flu shot, I usually feel at least a little burning and my shoulder is mildly sore almost immediately after and for the next 1-2 days. When one of the vaccines is approved for use, I'll ask to leave the trial so I can be unblinded, as I guess I'll be one of the first offered the vaccine.
The mRNA vaccines are incredibly safe, SO FAR. See post by @Travis above. There is little microbiologic or biochemical potential for long term side effects in these formulations. It is not a drug and the injectate just doesn't stay in your system very long.
-
erutio, good for you!
I just signed up for the phase 3 trial of the Oxford University/Astrazeneca vaccine yesterday, but I'm not very high risk. They probably won't chose me.
-
erutio, good for you!
I just signed up for the phase 3 trial of the Oxford University/Astrazeneca vaccine yesterday, but I'm not very high risk. They probably won't chose me.
Good for you too! And who knows, these trials want 10s of thousand of people, especially healthy people, so they may still bring you in.
A bonus for us mustachians is all the extra cash they give you. I have to fill out a daily online survey of my symptoms, takes a second for me as I just click "no", and receive $5 a day for each survey completed.
-
When the news broke about the Russian vaccine (and the lack of transparency surrounding it), I was hesitant. I would not have wanted to be one of the first batches.
But the longer this crisis goes on, the more I just want everyone possible to be vaccinated so that the world can return to some semblance of normalcy.
-
Yea, the Russian vaccine just finished phase 3 trails, but Sputnik V trial’s protocol has not been made public, in contrast to those of Pfizer and some other leading candidates in phase III trials: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03209-0
-
It's this lack of disclosure that really bothers me about Sputnik V.
Given the choice between being vaccinated with Sputnik V tomorrow and waiting for one of the other vaccines until end of 2021, I'd rather wait.
-
I see that there is an Ohio political group demanding that Trump impose martial law and redo the election, so it feels like sometimes opposing groups bump into the same proposed remedy. LOL
-
I see that there is an Ohio political group demanding that Trump impose martial law and redo the election, so it feels like sometimes opposing groups bump into the same proposed remedy. LOL
Four Republican legislators in Ohio have filed articles of impeachment against Ohio's Republican governor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/01/ohio-impeach-dewine-covid-restrictions/
"A group of four Republican state lawmakers filed a dozen articles of impeachment against DeWine on Monday, saying the governor violated state and federal laws by requiring masks in public and ordering some businesses to close."
-
And honestly, while DeWine is a fairly moderate Republican, he has really tiptoed around Covid rules, realizing, I dare say, that a lot of people wouldn’t obey actual rules anyway.
-
And honestly, while DeWine is a fairly moderate Republican, he has really tiptoed around Covid rules, realizing, I dare say, that a lot of people wouldn’t obey actual rules anyway.
Not if you don't enforce them they won't.
-
And honestly, while DeWine is a fairly moderate Republican, he has really tiptoed around Covid rules, realizing, I dare say, that a lot of people wouldn’t obey actual rules anyway.
Not if you don't enforce them they won't.
Well, how do you enforce them? I feel like the jails are already pretty full, and the police aren’t interested in being the mask police. Business licenses could be pulled, I guess.
-
And honestly, while DeWine is a fairly moderate Republican, he has really tiptoed around Covid rules, realizing, I dare say, that a lot of people wouldn’t obey actual rules anyway.
Not if you don't enforce them they won't.
Well, how do you enforce them? I feel like the jails are already pretty full, and the police aren’t interested in being the mask police. Business licenses could be pulled, I guess.
Tell officers to treat mask offenders like black people.
"His mask is off so I'm feeling in danger of my life!"
BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG
"Suspect down!"
-
I guess I'm a little hesitant about receiving the vaccine but by the time it filters down to my area and demographic, I'll be satisfied it won't lead to growing any goat horns or one arm won't suddenly become 6 inches longer or some other SNL grade comedy side effects...
We're looking forward to a return to the normal world. We're homebodies and relatively content but its been hard on so many people we know who are more outgoing, and especially that handful of families we know who lost people to COVID.
-
I'm not sure who they are, either, but I have heard a couple of my (imo reasonable) friends questioning the tight development timeline. And sure, I might be a bit curious about that too, but it's something I'll talk to my doc about. She's the expert regarding these matters, at least far more of an expert than I am.
And the Miller clan sure as hell plans to travel (internationally) when things settle down, and I can't imagine proof of covid-19 vaccination won't be required by lots of countries to gain entry for many, many years to come, so it's not like you'll probably have a choice unless you don't plan on traveling outside the US. And I'd assume (hope?) that US public schools will also require vaccination proof come fall. That will be a big freaking issue for sure.
-
Interesting, no one has mentioned the FDA would approve a vaccine with a 50% efficacy rate. Which seems like a S$*@ show waiting to happened if a widely used vaccine has a low efficacy rate in line with that. Ie, I'm vaccinated, so going to a swingers party. Except I'm not really vaccinated!
And there is no long term data to show efficacy over time... how effective is the Pfizer vaccine in a year or two? which seems concerning if your best vaccine needs cryogenic storage and realistically will be distributed over YEARS.
Looks like I ended up in the more testing please camp.
-
My wife works for the largest health care system in the state, where vaccines will be rolling out this month to front line workers, providers and high risk groups. There is quite a bit of concern among providers and other front line workers, who will be forced to take the vaccine. Some of them are saying they will quit instead of being test subjects for the vaccines.
I think the majority are concerned about the quick development timeline and risks such as the swine-flu vaccine narcolepsy link.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy
-
Interesting, no one has mentioned the FDA would approve a vaccine with a 50% efficacy rate. Which seems like a S$*@ show waiting to happened if a widely used vaccine has a low efficacy rate in line with that. Ie, I'm vaccinated, so going to a swingers party. Except I'm not really vaccinated!
And there is no long term data to show efficacy over time... how effective is the Pfizer vaccine in a year or two? which seems concerning if your best vaccine needs cryogenic storage and realistically will be distributed over YEARS.
Looks like I ended up in the more testing please camp.
Which vaccine has an efficacy rate of 50%? Or are you saying a general "they WOULD" approve one that is that low? Because last time I checked, both front runners have a 90%+ efficacy rate. Also, the Moderna vaccine can be stored at "normal" freezer temperatures of -20F . https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/17/935563377/why-does-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-need-to-be-kept-colder-than-antarctica
-
Interesting, no one has mentioned the FDA would approve a vaccine with a 50% efficacy rate. Which seems like a S$*@ show waiting to happened if a widely used vaccine has a low efficacy rate in line with that. Ie, I'm vaccinated, so going to a swingers party. Except I'm not really vaccinated!
As far as I'm aware all of the currently-announced vaccines has efficacy at 90+%, and I doubt at this point a lower-efficacy vaccine would be able to compete. But even if there was one, it would still be useful. "Herd immunity" does start to become a thing at around 70% herd resistance, so even a 50% effective vaccine would go a long way towards getting that curve to start bending down instead of up. People who are particularly high-risk would probably want something better, but for the population at large that's probably good enough, which is why the FDA would approve it in the first place.
And there is no long term data to show efficacy over time... how effective is the Pfizer vaccine in a year or two? which seems concerning if your best vaccine needs cryogenic storage and realistically will be distributed over YEARS.
How is this realistically different from the Flu vaccine, which you have to get every year if you want it to be at all effective? We will have data about if it's effective for a year a year from now, so worst-case scenario is they simply tell people to get it again.
-
It looks like we are off to the races:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/02/uk/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-uk-intl-hnk/index.html
-
Phase III trials for a vaccine last from 1 - 4 years. Except in covid times . . . where they can apparently be completed in a couple months. This speed in completion of testing cannot be explained by 'overlapping trials'.
I really, really hope that nothing goes wrong with this.
-
Phase III trials for a vaccine last from 1 - 4 years. Except in covid times . . . where they can apparently be completed in a couple months. This speed in completion of testing cannot be explained by 'overlapping trials'.
I really, really hope that nothing goes wrong with this.
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines, which is an exceptionally safe type of vaccine, and that's a conversation that predates COVID. I'm much more inclined to trust the medical and scientific communities than I am baseless hand-wringing on the internet.
I'm not expecting to be among the first people to get a vaccine because I imagine that the first batches will be reserved for high-risk people / healthcare workers / the elderly, but I don't see any reason for all this worry. This is drifting a little too close to baseless anti-vaxerism for my comfort, which I abhor. Is there a reason that you think there might be "something that goes wrong with this", especially a something that is worse than doing nothing?
-
Phase III trials for a vaccine last from 1 - 4 years. Except in covid times . . . where they can apparently be completed in a couple months. This speed in completion of testing cannot be explained by 'overlapping trials'.
I really, really hope that nothing goes wrong with this.
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines, which is an exceptionally safe type of vaccine, and that's a conversation that predates COVID. I'm much more inclined to trust the medical and scientific communities than I am baseless hand-wringing on the internet.
I'm not expecting to be among the first people to get a vaccine because I imagine that the first batches will be reserved for high-risk people / healthcare workers / the elderly, but I don't see any reason for all this worry. This is drifting a little too close to baseless anti-vaxerism for my comfort, which I abhor. Is there a reason that you think there might be "something that goes wrong with this", especially a something that is worse than doing nothing?
This has been developed and gone through trials and approval faster than any vaccine before in history. You are claiming that mRNA vaccines are safe in humans based upon theory. Before this month, no mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for use in humans.
My concern is related to the above facts. I work in QA. "Unprecedented speed", "never before tested", "reduced testing rigor", "extremely high development pressure", and "should be fine in theory" all raise warning flags for me.
Warning flags don't mean that a problem exists! It doesn't mean that the vaccine won't work! It doesn't mean that people shouldn't take the vaccine! But it makes me sincerely hope that nothing goes wrong with this.
-
And honestly, while DeWine is a fairly moderate Republican, he has really tiptoed around Covid rules, realizing, I dare say, that a lot of people wouldn’t obey actual rules anyway.
Not if you don't enforce them they won't.
Well, how do you enforce them? I feel like the jails are already pretty full, and the police aren’t interested in being the mask police. Business licenses could be pulled, I guess.
Tell officers to treat mask offenders like black people.
"His mask is off so I'm feeling in danger of my life!"
BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG
"Suspect down!"
The trouble is that the police ARE mask resisters, at least around here.
-
As far as I'm aware all of the currently-announced vaccines has efficacy at 90+%, and I doubt at this point a lower-efficacy vaccine would be able to compete. But even if there was one, it would still be useful. "Herd immunity" does start to become a thing at around 70% herd resistance, so even a 50% effective vaccine would go a long way towards getting that curve to start bending down instead of up. People who are particularly high-risk would probably want something better, but for the population at large that's probably good enough, which is why the FDA would approve it in the first place.
How is this realistically different from the Flu vaccine, which you have to get every year if you want it to be at all effective? We will have data about if it's effective for a year a year from now, so worst-case scenario is they simply tell people to get it again.
Flue comparison... thats interested but awkward. The regular flue doesn't kill as many old people and we as a society typically haven't worry about the regular flue. This is not a silver bullet, but at least the knuckleheads in my family/friends all believe it to be that. So what does that do to how people behave?
If/as efficacy drops, can we get to a place were you think you were vaccinated and you go to Grandma's finally and unfortunately you were not immune anymore? The astra Zeneca/Oxford vaccine flamed out when people took a harder look at the data and the dosing varied the efficacy. Hopefully Pfizer is better. Hope not data is what we have.
So... the vaccine isn't bad and is better than nothing... but expectations definitely need to be tempered. If after a year, you need to be re-vaccinated, thats going to be another huge logistical load on the vaccine system thats still trying to get many people their first vaccine!
-
Phase III trials for a vaccine last from 1 - 4 years. Except in covid times . . . where they can apparently be completed in a couple months. This speed in completion of testing cannot be explained by 'overlapping trials'.
I really, really hope that nothing goes wrong with this.
Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines, which is an exceptionally safe type of vaccine, and that's a conversation that predates COVID. I'm much more inclined to trust the medical and scientific communities than I am baseless hand-wringing on the internet.
I'm not expecting to be among the first people to get a vaccine because I imagine that the first batches will be reserved for high-risk people / healthcare workers / the elderly, but I don't see any reason for all this worry. This is drifting a little too close to baseless anti-vaxerism for my comfort, which I abhor. Is there a reason that you think there might be "something that goes wrong with this", especially a something that is worse than doing nothing?
+1.
-
And honestly, while DeWine is a fairly moderate Republican, he has really tiptoed around Covid rules, realizing, I dare say, that a lot of people wouldn’t obey actual rules anyway.
Not if you don't enforce them they won't.
Well, how do you enforce them? I feel like the jails are already pretty full, and the police aren’t interested in being the mask police. Business licenses could be pulled, I guess.
In Italy they were handing out harsh fines and jail time to be served after the pandemic is over. In the UK they are handing out exponentially increasing fines for repeat offenders. In the US the cops smile and wave.
-
Phase III trials for a vaccine last from 1 - 4 years. Except in covid times . . . where they can apparently be completed in a couple months. This speed in completion of testing cannot be explained by 'overlapping trials'.
I really, really hope that nothing goes wrong with this.
This is only half true. All of these vaccine trials are only "done" for adults at this point. They still need more phase 3 trials for other age groups. So they aren't "done" yet.
With that said, maybe they are a little quick, but phase 3 is largely for efficacy, not safety. So some of the things that we didn't learn, eg how long is does the immunity last, aren't that concerning.
-
i think they also do a lot of computer modeling which i believe speeds up the process quite a bit. it's not as good as real world testing but still...
i'm not an early adopter nor am i high risk so i'll probably wait a bit.
-
I'm not sure who they are, either, but I have heard a couple of my (imo reasonable) friends questioning the tight development timeline. And sure, I might be a bit curious about that too, but it's something I'll talk to my doc about. She's the expert regarding these matters, at least far more of an expert than I am.
Unfortunately that has nothing to do with being an expert or not. It's just that in medicine it can turn out that something thought to be save can turn out fairly nasty later - often several years later. Like the swine flu thing in one of the posts a bit after yours.
Interesting, no one has mentioned the FDA would approve a vaccine with a 50% efficacy rate.
Where did you get that number from? The worst I know is from the AstraZeneca vaccine. That had an overall efficiency of 70%, with one of the studies the lowest number of 62%
All other vaccines (ignoring the russian one) come to roughly 90% or above.
The trouble is that the police ARE mask resisters, at least around here.
Means they can shoot each other when they get on the job and before they can hurt anybody else! Win-Win!!
i think they also do a lot of computer modeling which i believe speeds up the process quite a bit.
Forget about computer modelling. I mean it's better than nothing, but far away from reliable. If you want to improve that, you can play fold.it ;)
-
Between being older and having asthma I will be taking it. I know people that are taking a wait and see approach.
-
Lots of vaccines don't come close to 90% effectiveness. I get the general ferling that the various vaccine companies are thrilled at 90%+.
-
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread, but that's OK, the lay public doesn't typically know about this type of stuff. Hopefully some of this will clarify some things.
Pre-clinical trials are done in the lab and on animals.
Phase 1 trials are done on small groups of very healthy adults. These are the human guinea pigs, if you will. What they are looking for are immediate side effects and adverse reactions. In the case of these vaccine trials, they are also looking if the vaccine causes an immune response, ie cause your body to produce antibodies.
Phase 2 trials are like an extension of phase 1. They are still focused on safety, but now they are recruiting a more diverse population, with medical co-morbidities and different age groups. Adverse reactions are monitored for very closely.
In phase 3, safety has been established, but monitoring continues. Like PDX stated, what they are looking at now is efficacy. Given to 10s of thousand of subjects, does this vaccine cause one to be less likely to catch the disease? In the pfizer trial, something like ~95 people (out of thousands) got covid19, and 90 people were in the placebo arm and 5 people were in the vaccine arm. The people were received the drug also reported milder cases. Their internal data analysis looked at the randomization to see if the two arms are statistically similar, looked at the power, and looked at other data, and they must have felt confident enough to come out with the 95% statement. Same with Moderna and the 90% statement.
This has been developed and gone through trials and approval faster than any vaccine before in history. You are claiming that mRNA vaccines are safe in humans based upon theory. Before this month, no mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for use in humans.
My concern is related to the above facts. I work in QA. "Unprecedented speed", "never before tested", "reduced testing rigor", "extremely high development pressure", and "should be fine in theory" all raise warning flags for me.
Many mRNA vaccines have been developed over the past 15 years or so. They have uniformly been incredibly safe. What @GuitarStv stated above are just half truths and are worded to induce anxiety and hand-wringing. mRNA vaccines are safe in humans based upon theory based on many trials that have gone to phase III.
No mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for use in humans, because they have not demonstrated statistically significant efficacy in phase 3 trials, not because they were unsafe for humans.
"Unprecendented speed" is probably true, but doesn't mean much. "Never before tested" is not true, mRNA vaccines have been in development and testing for almost 20 years. "Reduced testing rigor" is just not true. "Extremely high developmental pressure" is very true.
The mRNA is just the vehicle into the cells. The cells pick it up and will try to produce some antigens from the mRNA strand, then the mRNA strand gets "discarded" and basically denatures and is urinated out the body. The antigens are then "presented" to our immune cells and hopefully they produce an antibody response. There is no drug, no neurotransmitters, no heavy metals, nothing that should last in our body more than a few days.
The risks are going to be immediate, or within the first few weeks if there is a rare delayed reaction. Otherwise, people are correct when they say the long term effects are not known. But the long term effects will never be known until the "long term" has come and past. We won't know what will happen at a year post vaccine until a year has past, so do we need to wait a year? But after a year, people will say "but we don't know the effects after 2 years". But of course we will not know the 2 year effects until we wait 2 years, etc. Is it safe to extrapolate the data from prior mRNA vaccine trials? There is definitely some risk here.
What I'm curious about is the supply vs demand when it rolls out. I'm hearing enough skepticism from online forums like here as well as from many healthcare workers IRL that I think supply won't be as huge of an issue at first as many believe.
-
I’m assuming that a lot of healthcare people will be required to get the vaccine, just like they’re required to get flu shots.
-
In phase 3, safety has been established, but monitoring continues.
No, this is incorrect.
At least that's what the CDC says (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html)):
"In Phase III, the vaccine is given to thousands of people and tested for efficacy and safety."
Or GSK (https://ca.gsk.com/en-ca/research/trials-in-people/clinical-trial-phases/ (https://ca.gsk.com/en-ca/research/trials-in-people/clinical-trial-phases/))
"The principle objectives in Phase III are to:
- demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the new medicine or vaccine in the typical patient likely to use it
- confirm effective dosing levels
- identify side effects or reasons why the treatment should not be given to people with the condition in question (known as ‘contraindications’)
- build knowledge of the benefits of the medicine or vaccine and compare them with any risks
compare results against any currently achieved by existing treatments"
Or wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_trial#Phase_III (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_trial#Phase_III)
"Phase III trials continue to monitor toxicity, immunogenicity, and SAEs on a much larger scale. The vaccine must be shown to be safe and effective in natural disease conditions before being submitted for approval and then general production."
etc.
Evaluation of safety continues to be an important part of Phase III trials. It has not been established when the (limited) phase II trials are complete.
This has been developed and gone through trials and approval faster than any vaccine before in history. You are claiming that mRNA vaccines are safe in humans based upon theory. Before this month, no mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for use in humans.
My concern is related to the above facts. I work in QA. "Unprecedented speed", "never before tested", "reduced testing rigor", "extremely high development pressure", and "should be fine in theory" all raise warning flags for me.
Many mRNA vaccines have been developed over the past 15 years or so. They have uniformly been incredibly safe.
mRNA vaccines are safe in humans based upon theory based on many trials that have gone to phase III.
Limited trials have been completed - and that's great! We're not depending entirely on theory. A large scale roll-out of this type of vaccine has never been done before though.
As we've already determined, phase II testing is limited in scope does not determine safety of a vaccine. To date no mRNA vaccine has received the widespread distribution to prove it's safety. This doesn't mean that it's unsafe. It's great news that we have a history of mRNA vaccines being used in trials - this reduced risk of long term complications. But safety is absolutely not proven at this point, and risk does exist on this front. To claim otherwise is dishonest.
No mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for use in humans, because they have not demonstrated statistically significant efficacy in phase 3 trials, not because they were unsafe for humans.
My argument wasn't that mRNA vaccines are unsafe . . . it was that we don't really know much about their safety to be rolling this out to every human being on Earth. We think that they're safe, and all signs seem to be good so far.
"Unprecendented speed" is probably true, but doesn't mean much. "Never before tested" is not true, mRNA vaccines have been in development and testing for almost 20 years. "Reduced testing rigor" is just not true. "Extremely high developmental pressure" is very true.
I'm not sure how the argument that 'Unprecedented speed' doesn't mean much can be made. The shortest ever development speed of a vaccine prior to this was about three years. That means that for the Mumps vaccine we had some long term data regarding the safety of the vaccine.
Never before tested is true when considering scale.
This vaccine has been developed from start to finish in well under a year. That means that testing rigor has been reduced from the normal multi-year process which gives some longer term data on effects.
The mRNA is just the vehicle into the cells. The cells pick it up and will try to produce some antigens from the mRNA strand, then the mRNA strand gets "discarded" and basically denatures and is urinated out the body. The antigens are then "presented" to our immune cells and hopefully they produce an antibody response. There is no drug, no neurotransmitters, no heavy metals, nothing that should last in our body more than a few days.
This statement is made by drawing inferences from current theory rather than real world testing. That is exactly the thalidomide mistake. Scientists working theory at the time was that no drug taken by a pregnant woman could pass across the placental barrier and harm the developing fetus. We found out that the theory didn't always hold - to great cost. Theory is good - testing is better.
I believe that everyone involved in developing this vaccine is doing everything they can to ensure it's safety. Risk for this vaccine is likely to be higher than one developed using the normal processes and under normal conditions. The significance of this added risk is not currently known - and it very well could amount nothing at all. That is my fervent hope.
I also appreciate everyone's input in this conversation. I'm learning more about this vaccine and have been encouraged by much of what I've seen.
-
This sounds like a discussion between the dev lead and the test lead when project manager is trying to decide whether or not to ship.
"Our software is great. And we're using the new framework vue.js so we won't have any capacity issues!"
"You just finished fixing the priority 1 bugs yesterday, so we haven't had a chance to do any capacity testing."
I can tell you how the meeting usually ends and the longer term outcome!
Not to say that vaccine development is anything like software development... just sometimes you have to go slow to go fast.
GuitarStv has a perfectly valid point. Government is usually terrible at risk management, and there's so much pressure to start distributing vaccines... I wonder what sort of negative side effect would be necessary for the UK/US/Canada not to approve a vaccine?
-
Haha, yeah, like software.
But it is wrong to say that government is bad at risk management. Politicians often are (because risk anagement needs special training or having a knack for it), but they are only a small part of government. For example:
This vaccine has been developed from start to finish in well under a year. That means that testing rigor has been reduced from the normal multi-year process which gives some longer term data on effects.
In the EU the process just for getting the OK from the government normally starts after the phase 3 trials, and it is a deliberately slowly multi-step process with communications between the expert group and the producer that can even include visits to the production site.
All to make sure nothing has been overlooked.
This process takes a full year. And even after that you only get a time limited license where you have to continue proving that your vaccine is safe.
For Corona the process started just when the phase 2 trials were over, and is done in parallel instead in steps and so on.
That means that there is less time to find something, but also more work that needs to be done because you need to do some things double and triple of you parallel.
Let's say they have overlooked (which could happen even in the normal and 100% correct process because of statistics) that 1 in 10'000 people get a deadly brain stroke after a few months (has happened with medicine before).
We are going to vaccinate several billion people. So that means your vaccine kills 30'000-50'000 people.
That 1:10000 is (ballpark number) the same rate as someone like me can expect to be killed by Corona.
Risk has a terrible tendency to rise with numbers.
-----
Example: The whole shit of anti-terrorism. There was a test for facial recognition at a train station. They claimed it a success with 95% accuracy. On a test group that did not try to hide their faces. IT people laughed in disbelieve.
So the police said it will go up to 99,5% and that is really good!!!
If you do the numbers it would mean a station like Shinjuku would need to have SEVERAL HUNDRED policeman round the clock just for checking people's ID documents where the recognition failed. There isn't even the space for it, not to mention that people would no like it.
---
Or the breast cancer controvery. Mammography saves about 1/100 woman lives, often in the later part fo their life.
But it also means 1/10 (or so) get their breast amputated and a lot more have to go under stressful and painful scrutiny.
Is it still worth the effort? I think yes. But it's not such a clear cut case as simply "saves 1/100 lives". Medicine is a messy field. Statistics is a messy field. And if you add them together...
A personal example: If there is a risk of getting dizzy from a medicine, chance 10% or 1% or even lower, I seem to get it 80% of the time.
-
I've only had one person tell me they don't want an early vaccine because they're worried about long term effects.....and I consider them to be a reasonable person.
I'll get the vaccine when it's offered to me, but I suspect that will be early summer at the earliest before it would be offered to me....unless I can get it earlier as an 'essential caregiver' for my mother in a LTD facility. And I'll sign the authorization form in a heartbeat for her to get the shot. She's nearly 99, not worried about long term effects for her, but COVID19 would kill her. (and a side rant - I have to get a covid19 test every 5 days in order to have a negative result within the last 7, it takes 2 days for results)
as a slight detour - do folks understand why the uptick of people getting the flu shot is so much higher this year? Don't get me wrong, I got it as soon as I could, because I get it every year.....but for people who don't normally get it, why this year? If there was ever a year that flu infections are low, it would be this year IMHO. We're wearing masks, washing our hands raw and social distancing up the ying yang, how the f@ck would people even get the flu? just sayin'.
-
as a slight detour - do folks understand why the uptick of people getting the flu shot is so much higher this year? Don't get me wrong, I got it as soon as I could, because I get it every year.....but for people who don't normally get it, why this year? If there was ever a year that flu infections are low, it would be this year IMHO. We're wearing masks, washing our hands raw and social distancing up the ying yang, how the f@ck would people even get the flu? just sayin'.
Yes: because there's no law of nature that says that you can't get COVID and the flu at the same time, which would be particularly bad. Hence more people getting the flu vaccine to protect against what they can protect against.
-
as a slight detour - do folks understand why the uptick of people getting the flu shot is so much higher this year? Don't get me wrong, I got it as soon as I could, because I get it every year.....but for people who don't normally get it, why this year? If there was ever a year that flu infections are low, it would be this year IMHO. We're wearing masks, washing our hands raw and social distancing up the ying yang, how the f@ck would people even get the flu? just sayin'.
Yes: because there's no law of nature that says that you can't get COVID and the flu at the same time, which would be particularly bad. Hence more people getting the flu vaccine to protect against what they can protect against.
I get that, that's why I got the flu shot.....but what I don't get is the people who couldn't be bothered to get the flu shot other years, suddenly need it this year....other than the very real feeling of 2020 being a year of no control and getting a flu shot is a little bit of control.
in Ontario Canada, the flu shot is as easy (and free) as walking in to a pharmacy and 10 minutes later walking out with a bandaid....this year is was a 45 minute wait and rushing in when I got the email that they'd gotten a new shipment. Part of my point I guess is that it's so frickin' easy and available, why the hell don't folks get it every year.....
-
In software, if you fixed all the bugs and all the unit and integration tests passed, your manager would be good to release it. New technology increases the speed that something takes. He should be happy if something that once took 4 days to fix and test now only takes a half day.
That's why I'm not concerned with these vaccine trials. If the vaccine is passing the trials, why should we be afraid of it? Speed is not an argument in my opinion.
Some new tech that has caused this vaccine to be developed fast:
The trials the covid vaccines are passing have been altered from the trials a vaccine normally needs to go through. This has been done to increase speed. While everyone is doing everything possible to ensure safety, this alteration is reducing the level of safety that we have with the covid vaccine in comparison to the normal way things are done. The 'new tech' you're talking about is also an unknown - it has only been tested in small trials, never for widespread release. We're relying mostly on theory rather than testing to determine it's safety.
To use your software analogy, we're using a brand new bit of software that seems to work well in preliminary testing - but we're not bothering to do all the longevity tests and corner case regression since the early checks went so well, the software is perfect in theory, and we're in a time crunch. This does happen all the time in development . . . effectively pushing these parts of the final testing phase out onto the end user. That works OK for software - because you can always reboot a PC. It is more problematic with humans.
Again - this doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe. We're just dealing with more unknowns than normal. Hopefully all will work out.
-
In software, if you fixed all the bugs and all the unit and integration tests passed, your manager would be good to release it. New technology increases the speed that something takes. He should be happy if something that once took 4 days to fix and test now only takes a half day.
That's why I'm not concerned with these vaccine trials. If the vaccine is passing the trials, why should we be afraid of it? Speed is not an argument in my opinion.
Some new tech that has caused this vaccine to be developed fast:
The trials the covid vaccines are passing have been altered from the trials a vaccine normally needs to go through. This has been done to increase speed. While everyone is doing everything possible to ensure safety, this alteration is reducing the level of safety that we have with the covid vaccine in comparison to the normal way things are done. The 'new tech' you're talking about is also an unknown - it has only been tested in small trials, never for widespread release. We're relying mostly on theory rather than testing to determine it's safety.
To use your software analogy, we're using a brand new bit of software that seems to work well in preliminary testing - but we're not bothering to do all the longevity tests and corner case regression since the early checks went so well, the software is perfect in theory, and we're in a time crunch. This does happen all the time in development . . . effectively pushing these parts of the final testing phase out onto the end user. That works OK for software - because you can always reboot a PC. It is more problematic with humans.
Again - this doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe. We're just dealing with more unknowns than normal. Hopefully all will work out.
So if you were in the shoes of whatever Canadian has to make the decision as to whether the vaccine should start being administered in your country in the next month or two... what would you do? If you say no, thousands will likely die while waiting for the vaccine to be approved. And if no, what is the actual proper amount of time before you feel comfortable saying yes? I agree with other posters that "time" should not be a factor... because that's kind of arbitrary. You could do 4 years of phase 3 trials and someone could still say that we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine. Are we really ever sure? Isn't that kind of what pre COVID anti vaxxers would say? Are anti vaxxers going to be justified in the future by simply saying that they don't want to take vaccines because the long term side effects are unknown?
I don't know. At some point people who have the enormous weight of making big decisions are going to have to make some. When does the trade off of what seems to be a tiny amount of risk overcome the almost guaranteed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lost human lives if you delay for an arbitrary 6mo, 1yr, 4yrs, etc? Who wants to be the person who didn't listen to the science that says this vaccine is safe and decided to delay and accept that loss of life while other countries that do have great success? And also at some point we as individuals are going to have to make our own decision, and it will be (as one poster said in another thread), "the biggest put up or shut up for people who have said 'believe the science' in the past"
-
So if you were in the shoes of whatever Canadian has to make the decision as to whether the vaccine should start being administered in your country in the next month or two... what would you do? If you say no, thousands will likely die while waiting for the vaccine to be approved. And if no, what is the actual proper amount of time before you feel comfortable saying yes? I agree with other posters that "time" should not be a factor... because that's kind of arbitrary. You could do 4 years of phase 3 trials and someone could still say that we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine. Are we really ever sure? Isn't that kind of what pre COVID anti vaxxers would say? Are anti vaxxers going to be justified in the future by simply saying that they don't want to take vaccines because the long term side effects are unknown?
I don't know. At some point people who have the enormous weight of making big decisions are going to have to make some. When does the trade off of what seems to be a tiny amount of risk overcome the almost guaranteed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lost human lives if you delay for an arbitrary 6mo, 1yr, 4yrs, etc? Who wants to be the person who didn't listen to the science that says this vaccine is safe and decided to delay and accept that loss of life while other countries that do have great success? And also at some point we as individuals are going to have to make our own decision, and it will be (as one poster said in another thread), "the biggest put up or shut up for people who have said 'believe the science' in the past"
There's no easy answer to these questions. It's a very tough choice, and I don't have the answers. We're choosing between a partially tested vaccine and a known disease.
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
-
as a slight detour - do folks understand why the uptick of people getting the flu shot is so much higher this year? Don't get me wrong, I got it as soon as I could, because I get it every year.....but for people who don't normally get it, why this year? If there was ever a year that flu infections are low, it would be this year IMHO. We're wearing masks, washing our hands raw and social distancing up the ying yang, how the f@ck would people even get the flu? just sayin'.
Yes: because there's no law of nature that says that you can't get COVID and the flu at the same time, which would be particularly bad. Hence more people getting the flu vaccine to protect against what they can protect against.
I get that, that's why I got the flu shot.....but what I don't get is the people who couldn't be bothered to get the flu shot other years, suddenly need it this year....other than the very real feeling of 2020 being a year of no control and getting a flu shot is a little bit of control.
in Ontario Canada, the flu shot is as easy (and free) as walking in to a pharmacy and 10 minutes later walking out with a bandaid....this year is was a 45 minute wait and rushing in when I got the email that they'd gotten a new shipment. Part of my point I guess is that it's so frickin' easy and available, why the hell don't folks get it every year.....
Because what Sherr said. I haven't gotten the flu shot in 25 years. Every once in a long while I'll get the flu and then it is over. Similar for DW.
Now we're old enough that we were to get the flu we might susceptible to COVID during recovery b/c perhaps (I don't know for sure) our immune system might be weakened. And we've worked all the way through this COVID event except for a month or so in the spring.
Our pharmacy visit was dead easy this year. It probably was last year too but we weren't motivated to figure out the process of getting a shot covered by insurance.
We'll probably get the shot every year from here on out. B/c of unknowns like COVID and we know the process.
-
Not an anti-vaxxer, not a covid disbeliever.........won't be getting a vaccine until there is more research, time to see the side effects, longer term impact. Call me a skeptic that for profit companies aren't cutting corners to get something to market asap.
Not picking on this poster specifically...
Vaccines that take 10 years to develop...it's not because they are doing research for 10 years and looking at the side effects 10 years later, it's because it takes so long to get the paperwork done and funding and all that fuckery. The actual research time is similar to what we'll see for COVID vaccine.
-
Vaccines that take 10 years to develop...it's not because they are doing research for 10 years and looking at the side effects 10 years later, it's because it takes so long to get the paperwork done and funding and all that fuckery. The actual research time is similar to what we'll see for COVID vaccine.
^ +1 I also read this in an article from a reputable source, but can't find the link just now...
Another source on technologies involved and timelines. I know Bloomberg might have reasons to promote safety / early vaccine use, but this article might also be of interest:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-02/how-safe-are-covid-19-vaccines-from-pfizer-biontech-moderna-and-astrazeneca? (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-02/how-safe-are-covid-19-vaccines-from-pfizer-biontech-moderna-and-astrazeneca?)
Another about mRNA and a private Canadian firm's work in it (paywalled for now, so quoted some background on the company):
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-inside-acuitas-therapeutics-the-vancouver-company-providing-a-crucial/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-inside-acuitas-therapeutics-the-vancouver-company-providing-a-crucial/)
Acuitas has a messy backstory. Dr. Madden, 66, who emigrated to Canada from the U.K. four decades ago to do post-doctoral biochemistry work with University of British Columbia professor Pieter Cullis (now Acuitas chairman), cofounded a biotech startup called Inex Pharmaceuticals. But he was downsized after the company merged with another firm in the late 2000s to become Tekmira.
He and other ex-employees founded AlCana Technologies Ltd, the forerunner to Acuitas, in 2009. After a lawsuit between AlCana and Tekmira, his company secured the right to produce drug delivery technology licensed from their ex-employer as part of a settlement.
Acuitas worked with Moderna, another future COVID-19 vaccine developer through the 2010s until Tekmira, now called Arbutus Biopharma Corp., terminated Acuitas’ license. After another lawsuit, the parties settled in 2018. Acuitas and Moderna parted ways but Dr. Madden’s company had by then developed intellectual property to provide its own brand of LNP.
Dr. Madden said Acuitas’ business goes well beyond the pandemic; the profitable company has signed at least 10 deals with drug developers who license its technology in a range of therapeutic areas.
But he said the high profile use of LNP during the pandemic “provides clinical proofs of concept that the technology is extremely powerful and can be used to rapidly develop new vaccines.”
-
I read someplace that vaccines can be slow in testing simply because of difficulties getting enough people in the clinical trials, so it takes a long time to get to the required sample size. That was not an issue with these vaccines. ;-) They have 6 months + since testing to see medium term side effects.
Apparently the short term side effects are much like other vaccines; your arm hurts, you feel crappy for a day or 2 because your immune system has been activated. If feeling crappy enough to stay home for a day turns out to be common, it means that workplace immunization should be staggered so you don't have a bunch of people all off work on the same day.
My arm always hurts after any vaccination, and I usually feel a bit off the day after. When my turn comes I am getting it, whichever version of it is being offered.
-
I think going ahead with the vaccines is probably the right choice at this time. If there turn out to be bad side effects that haven't been discovered in trials, hopefully they'll show up quickly. Covid has bad side effects, too.
-
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.
-
as a slight detour - do folks understand why the uptick of people getting the flu shot is so much higher this year? Don't get me wrong, I got it as soon as I could, because I get it every year.....but for people who don't normally get it, why this year? If there was ever a year that flu infections are low, it would be this year IMHO. We're wearing masks, washing our hands raw and social distancing up the ying yang, how the f@ck would people even get the flu? just sayin'.
Yes: because there's no law of nature that says that you can't get COVID and the flu at the same time, which would be particularly bad. Hence more people getting the flu vaccine to protect against what they can protect against.
I get that, that's why I got the flu shot.....but what I don't get is the people who couldn't be bothered to get the flu shot other years, suddenly need it this year....other than the very real feeling of 2020 being a year of no control and getting a flu shot is a little bit of control.
in Ontario Canada, the flu shot is as easy (and free) as walking in to a pharmacy and 10 minutes later walking out with a bandaid....this year is was a 45 minute wait and rushing in when I got the email that they'd gotten a new shipment. Part of my point I guess is that it's so frickin' easy and available, why the hell don't folks get it every year.....
Maybe, they don’t want to risk ending up in a hospital with a flu due to the risk of getting covid there. Or because every sniffle puts you in home carantine until you have had a covid test.
I don’t get the flu shot because I am not in a risk group so if I get the flu it will probably not be that big deal. The only time I have taken it was for the swine flu, when that was a big thing some years ago because my employer offered it and I was also going to fly to Thailand for e vacation and didn’t want to risk to get it there.
-
This has been an enlightening discussion especially since I have not done much reading on the covid vaccines yet. This week, my mother told me it was dangerous because the vaccine would modify your DNA (or something along those lines). Been also getting a lot of alarmist anti-vax stuff (that I usually don't read) in my Whatsapp from various relatives. I though it all sounded very odd so have been interested in factchecking. Lots of GREAT info here.
I do admit I am a bit hesitant about the vaccine. We delayed vaccinations for our kids until they were a little older than recommended but did eventually get them all their shots (it's kinda hard to deny many years of improvement to public health due to widespread vaccinations). That said, we don't get the flu vaccines. So we are still slightly sceptical about vaccines.
We are Canadian though so personally, this is a debate in theory only. The US and UK will be our guinea pigs as we won't have vaccine access for some months anyway. And by the time it trickles down to me (40s with no risk factors), there should be a lot more info on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
Sent from my VCE-AL00 using Tapatalk
-
This has been an enlightening discussion especially since I have not done much reading on the covid vaccines yet. This week, my mother told me it was dangerous because the vaccine would modify your DNA (or something along those lines). Been also getting a lot of alarmist anti-vax stuff (that I usually don't read) in my Whatsapp from various relatives. I though it all sounded very odd so have been interested in factchecking. Lots of GREAT info here.
I do admit I am a bit hesitant about the vaccine. We delayed vaccinations for our kids until they were a little older than recommended but did eventually get them all their shots (it's kinda hard to deny many years of improvement to public health due to widespread vaccinations). That said, we don't get the flu vaccines. So we are still slightly sceptical about vaccines.
We are Canadian though so personally, this is a debate in theory only. The US and UK will be our guinea pigs as we won't have vaccine access for some months anyway. And by the time it trickles down to me (40s with no risk factors), there should be a lot more info on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
Sent from my VCE-AL00 using Tapatalk
Re: vaccines - This is an interesting and informative blog post from a Canadian epidemiologist: http://blog.deonandan.com/wordpress/2020/12/covid-19-lets-talk-about-vaccines.html
-
Elaine, I will happily be a guinea pig for you. Most of my social circle is in the high risk age group. DD and SiL will probably be in one of the last groups (30s, healthy) so if I want to see them I'm the one who will need to be vaccinated.
-
My sister. She's a coroner, and pretty educated in science, biology, medicine, etc. (Though she is not an M.D.)
She has said several times that she doesn't want to "be a guinea pig" and would have to think long and hard before receiving it any time soon. On one hand, I'm somewhat surprised, but on the other hand, I know her to be a dedicated contrarian. I'm also not sure (and I don't know that she is either) if ultimately she would/will say no.
DH is military and I fully expect them to not only be in an early group (and separate from the doses the states get and decide how to administer), but to be required to receive it.
I have little tingles of skepticism, but I am trying to suppress them as they don't seem logical. If I was offered the vaccine tomorrow, I would decline as I'm relatively low risk and it seems like a bad use of the dose. But if it was a case where the dose would go to me or into the trash, I would take it. There would be mild mental discomfort, but I would take it.
I have a casual friend who was actually part of a test group. While she doesn't know if she got the vaccine or the placebo, she said that if it turns out to be the latter, she would get the vaccine without hesitation. Her husband is a doctor and I believe he works in infectious disease, or similar.
-
Elaine, I will happily be a guinea pig for you. Most of my social circle is in the high risk age group. DD and SiL will probably be in one of the last groups (30s, healthy) so if I want to see them I'm the one who will need to be vaccinated.
The risk of covid radically ramps up with age, so the potential downside of the vaccine dwindles and quickly becomes outweighed by the benefit. There's no reason that someone in their late 60s or up should hesitate.
-
We are Canadian though so personally, this is a debate in theory only. The US and UK will be our guinea pigs as we won't have vaccine access for some months anyway. And by the time it trickles down to me (40s with no risk factors), there should be a lot more info on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
Sent from my VCE-AL00 using Tapatalk
This is still the "too fast" argument though. You feel comfortable doing it after all those people, but let's say you are up for your chance next fall. That's only 18 months since COVID hit... still the fastest developed vaccine ever! Aren't we still waiting to see if there's "long term" side affects? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I just don't see why "it was developed too fast" is a good argument if 10 months = not OK, but 18 months with lots already having taken it = SAFE .
-
We are Canadian though so personally, this is a debate in theory only. The US and UK will be our guinea pigs as we won't have vaccine access for some months anyway. And by the time it trickles down to me (40s with no risk factors), there should be a lot more info on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
Sent from my VCE-AL00 using Tapatalk
This is still the "too fast" argument though. You feel comfortable doing it after all those people, but let's say you are up for your chance next fall. That's only 18 months since COVID hit... still the fastest developed vaccine ever! Aren't we still waiting to see if there's "long term" side affects? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I just don't see why "it was developed too fast" is a good argument if 10 months = not OK, but 18 months with lots already having taken it = SAFE .
There's no switch that turns on and says 'safe'.
The more people who are given the vaccine, the greater confidence we have that there are no weird edge/corner cases that were missed in development and early testing. The longer people have had the vaccine with no problems, the greater confidence we have that there are no long term effects.
18 months and many samples given out is much better than 10 on both fronts. Not perfect, but you're significantly increasing the test population and almost doubling the time we have to see weird problems appear.
-
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.
Canadians are not as litigious as our neighbours to the south. Anyway, the indemnity makes sense to me if the benefits outweigh the risks by a lot because the potential legal risks could slow, or paralyze, the development and roll-out. Seems to me that getting vaccines to market as soon as reasonably practicable is our best shot (no pun intended) of getting things back to some semblance of normal.
Re. the flu shot: it helps to ensure that flu cases won't be mistaken for COVID, and vice-versa. Plus, getting sick with the flu and COVID at the same time might create a serious cytokine storm that would wallop the immune system. I don't really need the flu shot but got one anyway this year for the foregoing reasons.
-
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.
Canadians are not as litigious as our neighbours to the south. Anyway, the indemnity makes sense to me if the benefits outweigh the risks by a lot because the potential legal risks could slow, or paralyze, the development and roll-out. Seems to me that getting vaccines to market as soon as reasonably practicable is our best shot (no pun intended) of getting things back to some semblance of normal.
Re. the flu shot: it helps to ensure that flu cases won't be mistaken for COVID, and vice-versa. Plus, getting sick with the flu and COVID at the same time might create a serious cytokine storm that would wallop the immune system. I don't really need the flu shot but got one anyway this year for the foregoing reasons.
I wonder if the increased interest in the flu vaccine is a larger realization that we've been neglecting available preventative measures in general. The memes were all over the place in April that suddenly in the 21st century people had to be lectured that washing your hands and cleaning surfaces was a thing. Now that a lot of us are rightly afraid of this COVID thing we remembered that we're near flu season and while we're waiting for the COVID vaccine there's another one we should probably go ahead and get.
-
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.
At least in the USA, I think that all vaccines come with indemnity. If you get sick you get to go through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html).
-
When I got my flu vaccine I was asked if I usually get it. I do, for several reasons, but now I am wondering if they were seeing a lot of people who usually don't.
And yes, this is definitely not the year to get the flu.
-
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.
At least in the USA, I think that all vaccines come with indemnity. If you get sick you get to go through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html).
Remember that case with the Lyme disease vaccine back around 2000? Some personal injury lawyer successfully sued the manufacturer for giving vaccine recipients Lyme related arthritis. And now we have no lyme disease vaccine!?! Meanwhile incidents of lyme disease continue to climb year after year.
I wonder if that kick-started the practice of indemnification.
-
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.
Canadians are not as litigious as our neighbours to the south. Anyway, the indemnity makes sense to me if the benefits outweigh the risks by a lot because the potential legal risks could slow, or paralyze, the development and roll-out. Seems to me that getting vaccines to market as soon as reasonably practicable is our best shot (no pun intended) of getting things back to some semblance of normal.
Re. the flu shot: it helps to ensure that flu cases won't be mistaken for COVID, and vice-versa. Plus, getting sick with the flu and COVID at the same time might create a serious cytokine storm that would wallop the immune system. I don't really need the flu shot but got one anyway this year for the foregoing reasons.
I wonder if the increased interest in the flu vaccine is a larger realization that we've been neglecting available preventative measures in general. The memes were all over the place in April that suddenly in the 21st century people had to be lectured that washing your hands and cleaning surfaces was a thing. Now that a lot of us are rightly afraid of this COVID thing we remembered that we're near flu season and while we're waiting for the COVID vaccine there's another one we should probably go ahead and get.
I suspect this is more or less the explanation for the flu vaccine surge.
I almost forgot last year. (Didn't get it until February, when I was at urgent care and they asked if I'd had it. I had totally forgotten so I got it that day.) I get it most years, but once in a while life gets busy and I forget. But with health and illness such a big part of our everyday lives, it would have been nearly impossible to forget this year.
-
I started getting the flu vaccine after I got the flu about 5 years ago. My actual version of the flu was really not that bad - I did not feel like I was going to die, but I had a fever for a few days, and then was very very tired for about a week. But the flu test! OMG that was awful, so I get the flu vaccine in the hope that I never have to get a flu test ever again. (Also, I realized that I was visiting my elderly grandmother and immune-compromised niece every winter, and did not want to risk getting them sick.)
-
I picked the simply anti-van, as that is the woman they keep showing on my local news.
-
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
Vaccine makers are usually given indemnity for their vaccines. Otherwise every single pharmaceutical corp would be driven into bankruptcy with frivolous "well i got a vaccine and then <insert bad thing that may or may not be related but is impossible to disprove> happened" lawsuits, and that's before we even add in the anti-vaxxer "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy theorists. A quick google tells me that Canada is one of the only developed countries that doesn't do this, so I guess you probably legitimately didn't know, however this is not at all unusual.
It's normal for all emergency medication - which means all Covid vaccines will be.
I don't think this is the case for "normal" vaccines though, or why would there be that exception rule?
And by the time it trickles down to me (40s with no risk factors), there should be a lot more info on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
That's my stance exactly. I won't get it for quite some time, and I won't try to be faster, but when it is time, I likely will get my shot. Objectivly I am in the last group who should get it, so I will wait. And when it is time, we also know a lot better about risks.
It may even be that the virus has died out by then because of near-herd-immunity (Ha! Still you can dream).
-
So if you were in the shoes of whatever Canadian has to make the decision as to whether the vaccine should start being administered in your country in the next month or two... what would you do? If you say no, thousands will likely die while waiting for the vaccine to be approved. And if no, what is the actual proper amount of time before you feel comfortable saying yes? I agree with other posters that "time" should not be a factor... because that's kind of arbitrary. You could do 4 years of phase 3 trials and someone could still say that we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine. Are we really ever sure? Isn't that kind of what pre COVID anti vaxxers would say? Are anti vaxxers going to be justified in the future by simply saying that they don't want to take vaccines because the long term side effects are unknown?
I don't know. At some point people who have the enormous weight of making big decisions are going to have to make some. When does the trade off of what seems to be a tiny amount of risk overcome the almost guaranteed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lost human lives if you delay for an arbitrary 6mo, 1yr, 4yrs, etc? Who wants to be the person who didn't listen to the science that says this vaccine is safe and decided to delay and accept that loss of life while other countries that do have great success? And also at some point we as individuals are going to have to make our own decision, and it will be (as one poster said in another thread), "the biggest put up or shut up for people who have said 'believe the science' in the past"
There's no easy answer to these questions. It's a very tough choice, and I don't have the answers. We're choosing between a partially tested vaccine and a partially known disease.
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
FIFY. We don't actually know everything about Covid. We know more than we did in January, or March, or May. But we don't know what can happen 2 years down the line, or 5, or 50. And while we may know for example that some people become "long haulers", we don't necessarily know why or what to do about it.
-
So if you were in the shoes of whatever Canadian has to make the decision as to whether the vaccine should start being administered in your country in the next month or two... what would you do? If you say no, thousands will likely die while waiting for the vaccine to be approved. And if no, what is the actual proper amount of time before you feel comfortable saying yes? I agree with other posters that "time" should not be a factor... because that's kind of arbitrary. You could do 4 years of phase 3 trials and someone could still say that we don't know the long term effects of the vaccine. Are we really ever sure? Isn't that kind of what pre COVID anti vaxxers would say? Are anti vaxxers going to be justified in the future by simply saying that they don't want to take vaccines because the long term side effects are unknown?
I don't know. At some point people who have the enormous weight of making big decisions are going to have to make some. When does the trade off of what seems to be a tiny amount of risk overcome the almost guaranteed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lost human lives if you delay for an arbitrary 6mo, 1yr, 4yrs, etc? Who wants to be the person who didn't listen to the science that says this vaccine is safe and decided to delay and accept that loss of life while other countries that do have great success? And also at some point we as individuals are going to have to make our own decision, and it will be (as one poster said in another thread), "the biggest put up or shut up for people who have said 'believe the science' in the past"
There's no easy answer to these questions. It's a very tough choice, and I don't have the answers. We're choosing between a partially tested vaccine and a partially known disease.
I'm also a little bit concerned that Pfizer has been given indemnity in the UK from any legal consequences if their vaccine causes problems/complications: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html)
FIFY. We don't actually know everything about Covid. We know more than we did in January, or March, or May. But we don't know what can happen 2 years down the line, or 5, or 50. And while we may know for example that some people become "long haulers", we don't necessarily know why or what to do about it.
This is very true, and very concerning.
-
The New York Times put together a simple tool that helps estimate vaccine priority.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/03/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-timeline.html?fbclid=IwAR14Sy0CE9gBxKUU341bu3LxH_WFl6WzakjklzCeyMAQ481yu-DCDtM2USU
As I expected, I’m way down the priority list and by the time it’s my turn, I’ll certainly get the vaccine. I don’t think I’ll be rushing to get it early though.
-
Would $1,500, AKA $5/mo FIRE money (using 4% rule) be enough to sway anyone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/03/1500-stimulus-checks-for-covid-19-shots-how-one-plan-would-work.html
-
Would $1,500, AKA $5/mo FIRE money (using 4% rule) be enough to sway anyone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/03/1500-stimulus-checks-for-covid-19-shots-how-one-plan-would-work.html
Interesting proposal.
Sent from my VCE-AL00 using Tapatalk
-
Would $1,500, AKA $5/mo FIRE money (using 4% rule) be enough to sway anyone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/03/1500-stimulus-checks-for-covid-19-shots-how-one-plan-would-work.html
LOL, I'd be willing to pay $1,500 for a good vaccine.
-
Would $1,500, AKA $5/mo FIRE money (using 4% rule) be enough to sway anyone?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/03/1500-stimulus-checks-for-covid-19-shots-how-one-plan-would-work.html
I would do it in a heartbeat.
-
I’d be willing to shove the other old ladies out of the way and PAY $1500 if dh and I could be vaccinated at the end of the month!
Oddly, my 27yo dd will probably be at the head of the line, as she works “in a healthcare setting”.
-
I'd also pay 1500 to get vaccinated, if that was what was necessary.
-
My wife works for the largest health care system in the state, where vaccines will be rolling out this month to front line workers, providers and high risk groups. There is quite a bit of concern among providers and other front line workers, who will be forced to take the vaccine. Some of them are saying they will quit instead of being test subjects for the vaccines.
I think the majority are concerned about the quick development timeline and risks such as the swine-flu vaccine narcolepsy link.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy
30 million people got the vaccine. Over 1300 got narcolepsy, which while it sucks, is not fatal. Something like that would not dissuade me from taking a vaccine.
-
That is 0.0043%.
Given how they think the flu vaccine caused that, the mRNA based vaccines work on a totally different mechanism.
-
Ill let other people be Guinea pigs for the vaccine. By the time it's my turn to get it it will be pretty clear if it's safe or not.
-
My wife works for the largest health care system in the state, where vaccines will be rolling out this month to front line workers, providers and high risk groups. There is quite a bit of concern among providers and other front line workers, who will be forced to take the vaccine. Some of them are saying they will quit instead of being test subjects for the vaccines.
I think the majority are concerned about the quick development timeline and risks such as the swine-flu vaccine narcolepsy link.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy
30 million people got the vaccine. Over 1300 got narcolepsy, which while it sucks, is not fatal. Something like that would not dissuade me from taking a vaccine.
Narcolepsy would make it difficult to drive, work, do anything that is dangerous and requires steady attention - no?
-
I am not an anti-vaxxer by no means, I got the flu and shingles vaccines earlier this year. This is the first Mrna vaccine to ever be tried and no one knows what kind of long term effects it will have.
I immunocompromised so I am at high risk and could be in a 2nd or 3rd grouping but it's not clear if it's safe because there were no trials done on high risk subjects.
So I'm conflicted, as of now it has not yet been cleared for my condition though.
-
I am not an anti-vaxxer by no means, I got the flu and shingles vaccines earlier this year. This is the first Mrna vaccine to ever be tried and no one knows what kind of long term effects it will have.
Actually, it isn't the first mRNA vaccine (https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243). But the non-mRNA Oxford vaccine should be available soon-ish if you are worried.
-
Personally I think my taking the vaccine and timeline for it will end up being dictated by the FAA and my employer. As of now none of the vaccines are approved for use by the FAA and until that happens it’s a deal breaker for someone that makes their living as a pilot. Once approved I expect my employer will likely require it within a reasonable timeframe due to some nations making it a requirement for entry. Even if FAA approved and required by my company, the timeline may still be dictated more by my company than state health officials.
Why?
Because the FAA may require a grounding of one or two weeks after each injection to watch for side effects. Obviously this could cause a problem for airlines if too many pilots are vaccinated at once and aren’t permitted to fly. They need to control the timeline to ensure staffing in the event of onerous FAA restrictions. It seems that the most likely way to control that timeline will be to directly purchase the vaccine from manufacturers. So I’ll probably get voluntold to get vaccinated, and maybe at best get to try and sign up for a preferred period in which to get it.
-
I immunocompromised so I am at high risk and could be in a 2nd or 3rd grouping but it's not clear if it's safe because there were no trials done on high risk subjects.
They definitely tested the vaccine on thousands of people who are high risk for COVID, not just healthy people. From a Moderna press release (for example) "The COVE study includes more than 7,000 Americans over the age of 65. It also includes more than 5,000 Americans who are under the age of 65 but have high-risk chronic diseases that put them at increased risk of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity and cardiac disease. These medically high-risk groups represent 42% of the total participants in the Phase 3 COVE study."
They do exclude some people with immune-compromising diseases from the trials, but not all - I remember reading that they were recruiting people with HIV for the phase 3 trials, for example. But there are some conditions where you are fragile or unpredictable enough that you don't want to test a brand new drug on them, either. Maybe you have one of those conditions, I don't know. Hopefully they will sort you out pretty soon one way or another!
-
I am not an anti-vaxxer by no means, I got the flu and shingles vaccines earlier this year. This is the first Mrna vaccine to ever be tried and no one knows what kind of long term effects it will have.
Actually, it isn't the first mRNA vaccine (https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243). But the non-mRNA Oxford vaccine should be available soon-ish if you are worried.
The covid vaccine is the first mRNA vaccine approved for use in humans (some other mRNA vaccines have been tried in small clinical studies). It will be the first mRNA vaccine to receive widespread human use.
Both the mRNA and Oxford vaccines have been seriously fast tracked and have had reduced safety testing (regarding long term complications) in comparison to a normal vaccine because of the covid emergency.
-
I am not an anti-vaxxer by no means, I got the flu and shingles vaccines earlier this year. This is the first Mrna vaccine to ever be tried and no one knows what kind of long term effects it will have.
Actually, it isn't the first mRNA vaccine (https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243). But the non-mRNA Oxford vaccine should be available soon-ish if you are worried.
The covid vaccine is the first mRNA vaccine approved for use in humans (some other mRNA vaccines have been tried in small clinical studies). It will be the first mRNA vaccine to receive widespread human use.
Both the mRNA and Oxford vaccines have been seriously fast tracked and have had reduced safety testing (regarding long term complications) in comparison to a normal vaccine because of the covid emergency.
My concerns match these concerns. But it is very much a balancing act for me because my exposure to Covid is fairly low since I am not doing much that puts me in front of people. If the vaccine were available to me right now, I’d wait a few months to see if everything looked ok unless I had to travel or similar acts that bring me into contact with other humans. Right now my contact with people is pretty minimal.
I have recommended that my 84 year old mother get the vaccination as soon as it is offered because the balance is different for her. She is in a vulnerable age group and her boyfriend is diabetic. The balance shifts hard toward them needing the vaccine as soon as possible.
The reality is that the vaccine is not universally available. Instead it is going to be given to people in a phased approach with me very much late in the line. So I will take the vaccine when my time comes up for it.
My concerns are basically that we don’t know what we don’t know with any new vaccine until a year or so passes. But on the other hand Covid is a deadly disease.
My biggest concern about the vaccine right now is that while it may protect me, I’ve heard reports that they don’t know whether it protects the people around me. And protecting people around me who are immune compromised or likely to be injured severely with Covid is my primary reason for vaccination. It is why I get the flu vaccine every single year. I could survive a flu. I’m not sure my husband could.
Also some of the discussion here has modified my stance by adding extra knowledge.
-
There is a UK advisory about the Pfizer vaccine and those with serious allergic reactions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pfizer-allergic-warnings-vaccine/2020/12/09/4e79ec72-3a16-11eb-aad9-8959227280c4_story.html
British regulators on Wednesday ordered hospitals not to inject people who have a history of “significant” allergic reactions.
I can't find the original advisory so it's unclear whether it applies to just those who carry around an epi.
This allergic reaction, of course, may also be a problem with some of the other vaccines until they figure out which component/preservative/stabilizer is causing it.
-
This is an example of the test escapes GuitarStv and I were mentioning. Small phase 3 trial moving to millions of vaccinations, there are bound to be a couple of surprises.
If all we have are some allergic reactions, that's still a pretty good outcome!
-
There is a UK advisory about the Pfizer vaccine and those with serious allergic reactions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pfizer-allergic-warnings-vaccine/2020/12/09/4e79ec72-3a16-11eb-aad9-8959227280c4_story.html
British regulators on Wednesday ordered hospitals not to inject people who have a history of “significant” allergic reactions.
I can't find the original advisory so it's unclear whether it applies to just those who carry around an epi.
This allergic reaction, of course, may also be a problem with some of the other vaccines until they figure out which component/preservative/stabilizer is causing it.
Both NHS workers have a history of serious allergies and carry adrenaline pens around with them. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122
I'm one of those people, you carry the pen because you know that you might have to use it. At a Dr's office is literally the best case scenario.
-
I’m definitely in the “this is happening too fast” camp. I would be last in line if I could be, or wait to be the 1,000,000,000th person to try it. BUT - wife is pregnant, has a chronic illness, and I travel all over the city and meet with dozens of random people a week for work at construction sites and offices. So ... I will get it as soon as it is available, for better or worse. If there are serious long term consequences, at least I was trying to do the right thing for my family at the time.
-
So, it’s not that there were soooo many side effects from the swine flu vaccine considering how many doses were given (and it is hotly debated as to what side effects were actually attributable to the vaccine), it’s that it turned out that there weren’t a significant number of swine flu cases after all.
I can’t even remember whether I got that vaccine that year, but there has been a LOT of progress in vaccine development since then.
-
I have my vaccine date and I am internally those ten lords a-leaping!
-
My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months. And that's a doctor!
-
If you are a doctor or anyone else in constant contact to people, take it now. :(
This is an example of the test escapes GuitarStv and I were mentioning. Small phase 3 trial moving to millions of vaccinations, there are bound to be a couple of surprises.
If all we have are some allergic reactions, that's still a pretty good outcome!
Yeah. Still, as someone with a big allergy (albeit no pen), I prefer to wait. This is exactly what I meant when I talked about 1:10000 cases. There is bound to be something cropping up, and not everything is as fast as an allergic reaction.
Still, 99% or more of people should take the vaccine when it becomes available to them. As I will very likely when it comes around to me and Covid-19 is still a thing by that time (unfortunately seems to be that way).
-
My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months. And that's a doctor!
My doctor told me he thinks that herd immunity is the way to go. No masks, shutdowns or the like. That's widely accepted to be pretty much insane at this point. A cardiologist nor a general MD are experts in vaccines or 100 year pandemics. They're very specialized in their specific line of work.
-
My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months. And that's a doctor!
When I went to the pharmacy to get a flu shot the pharmacist was chatting about the vaccine and said he was going to wait.
I suspect many of us will have the "luxury" of waiting a few months. I fully expect that it will be late-spring to summer before my demographic will have the opportunity to get the vaccine.
What I cannot understand from the it happened too fast/wait a few months crowd is how a couple extra months will help. There is data for 10k+ vaccines during the trial, but limited longer term data on mRNA vaccines and no long term data on this vaccine. A couple extra months is not going to make tons of long term data appear.
-
Will the news that Covid can possibly cause erectile disfunction* encourage vaccination?
* not surprising given the micro-clot issues.
-
Will the news that Covid can possibly cause erectile disfunction* encourage vaccination?
* not surprising given the micro-clot issues.
Could depend on the nature of the dysfunction. You might get different results if the dysfunction is not getting up vs not going down.
:P
-
Will the news that Covid can possibly cause erectile disfunction* encourage vaccination?
* not surprising given the micro-clot issues.
Could depend on the nature of the dysfunction. You might get different results if the dysfunction is not getting up vs not going down.
:P
After the first hour priapism gets old.
-
My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months. And that's a doctor!
My doctor told me he thinks that herd immunity is the way to go. No masks, shutdowns or the like. That's widely accepted to be pretty much insane at this point. A cardiologist nor a general MD are experts in vaccines or 100 year pandemics. They're very specialized in their specific line of work.
But also, when did he tell you that, and with what information? Because if we were looking at an 80 year vaccine timeline that might have made sense.
-
My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months. And that's a doctor!
My doctor told me he thinks that herd immunity is the way to go. No masks, shutdowns or the like. That's widely accepted to be pretty much insane at this point. A cardiologist nor a general MD are experts in vaccines or 100 year pandemics. They're very specialized in their specific line of work.
But also, when did he tell you that, and with what information? Because if we were looking at an 80 year vaccine timeline that might have made sense.
It was August and was in the context that he didn't like wearing a mask. I assume he had the information that a vaccine was being developed. Even if it had been 8 months ago, the herd immunity angle was never given much weight to my knowledge.
-
Other emerging issues with the vaccine since the FDA made their info public on the 8th (for 2 days of public review before being voted on today the 10th)
Trial recipients developed Bells palsy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9030943/Four-volunteers-got-Pfizers-vaccine-developed-Bells-palsy.html
-
Other emerging issues with the vaccine since the FDA made their info public on the 8th (for 2 days of public review before being voted on today the 10th)
Trial recipients developed Bells palsy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9030943/Four-volunteers-got-Pfizers-vaccine-developed-Bells-palsy.html
Is this actually an emerging issue with the vaccine, though?
The FDA says this is in line with normal background rate of Bell's palsy. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
-
Other emerging issues with the vaccine since the FDA made their info public on the 8th (for 2 days of public review before being voted on today the 10th)
Trial recipients developed Bells palsy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9030943/Four-volunteers-got-Pfizers-vaccine-developed-Bells-palsy.html
Is this actually an emerging issue with the vaccine, though?
The FDA says this is in line with normal background rate of Bell's palsy. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
It was posted for public consumption 2 days ago, so as far as the public being aware, yes it is emerging. And it was reported as a possible side effect. There have been other vaccines that have cause Bell's palsy. They said they would keep monitoring for the signal, which means they simply do not have enough evidence to say that it doesn't cause it.
-
Other emerging issues with the vaccine since the FDA made their info public on the 8th (for 2 days of public review before being voted on today the 10th)
Trial recipients developed Bells palsy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9030943/Four-volunteers-got-Pfizers-vaccine-developed-Bells-palsy.html
Is this actually an emerging issue with the vaccine, though?
The FDA says this is in line with normal background rate of Bell's palsy. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
It was posted for public consumption 2 days ago, so as far as the public being aware, yes it is emerging. And it was reported as a possible side effect. There have been other vaccines that have cause Bell's palsy. They said they would keep monitoring for the signal, which means they simply do not have enough evidence to say that it doesn't cause it.
Sure, I can see that with low incidence events that they don't have enough evidence to definitely rule it out, but I don't think it accurate to say that Bell's palsy is an issue with this vaccine. If you see health problems occur in the treatment groups at the same rate as the background population, that would be evidence that there is not an issue with the vaccine.
It would be more accurate to say that these trials have produced no evidence that this vaccine causes Bell's palsy.
-
It would be more accurate to say that these trials have produced no evidence that this vaccine causes Bell's palsy.
No, that's not accurate at all.
It would be more accurate to say that the FDA concluded that there was a small possibility of Bell's palsy from administration of the vaccine. This is why the "FDA will recommend surveillance for cases of Bell’s palsy with deployment of the vaccine into larger populations. " - page 38 of the FDA report https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download)
-
It would be more accurate to say that these trials have produced no evidence that this vaccine causes Bell's palsy.
No, that's not accurate at all.
It would be more accurate to say that the FDA concluded that there was a small possibility of Bell's palsy from administration of the vaccine. This is why the "FDA will recommend surveillance for cases of Bell’s palsy with deployment of the vaccine into larger populations. " - page 38 of the FDA report https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download)
It is interesting how we interpret their wording differently. Here is their wording (with the part that you snipped off at the beginning):
The observed frequency of reported Bell’s palsy in the vaccine
group is consistent with the expected background rate in the general population, and there is no
clear basis upon which to conclude a causal relationship at this time, but FDA will recommend
surveillance for cases of Bell’s palsy with deployment of the vaccine into larger populations.
Fuzzy math interprets this as: an emerging issue with this vaccine.
GuitarStv interprets this as: this is evidence that the vaccine might cause Bell's palsy.
Evensteven interprets this as: As of yet, we have no evidence that this vaccine causes Bell's palsy.
-
It would be more accurate to say that these trials have produced no evidence that this vaccine causes Bell's palsy.
No, that's not accurate at all.
It would be more accurate to say that the FDA concluded that there was a small possibility of Bell's palsy from administration of the vaccine. This is why the "FDA will recommend surveillance for cases of Bell’s palsy with deployment of the vaccine into larger populations. " - page 38 of the FDA report https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download)
It is interesting how we interpret their wording differently. Here is their wording (with the part that you snipped off at the beginning):
The observed frequency of reported Bell’s palsy in the vaccine
group is consistent with the expected background rate in the general population, and there is no
clear basis upon which to conclude a causal relationship at this time, but FDA will recommend
surveillance for cases of Bell’s palsy with deployment of the vaccine into larger populations.
Fuzzy math interprets this as: an emerging issue with this vaccine.
GuitarStv interprets this as: this is evidence that the vaccine might cause Bell's palsy.
Evensteven interprets this as: As of yet, we have no evidence that this vaccine causes Bell's palsy.
I'm with you on that, it clearly says there's no indication that the vaccine causes Bell's Palsy, but they're going to keep watching for it just in case because cases were noted, and that's what you do when that happens.
They're saying that there is total lack of evidence of a link based on these numbers and timeline so far.
I wouldn't go so far as saying it proves there's no link. A lack of evidence isn't the same as evidence of no connection. We can't say the vaccine doesn't cause Bell's Palsy, the same way we can't say it doesn't cause autoimmune reactions, or narcolepsy, or anything for that matter.
There is no evidence so far that it causes any serious side effects, including Bell's Palsy or anything else, but that's based on only the evidence we have so far, which is relatively limited...well, relative compared to the sample size we're about to see that is.
Jumping to a much larger population dramatically increases the chances of observing unintended effects that weren't noted in the trials. So even if the number of people who developed Bell's Palsy in the trial is the exact same number as would have been expected even with no treatment, it's just prudent to keep an eye out at this stage.
It doesn't take a lot more cases of Bell's Palsy to suddenly be statistically above the normal rate in the population. It could happen, but so could a lot of things.
-
My dad was at a routine appointment with his cardiologist yesterday and the doctor told him that unless his employer (hospital group) requires it, he would like to wait at least a few months. And that's a doctor!
My doctor told me he thinks that herd immunity is the way to go. No masks, shutdowns or the like. That's widely accepted to be pretty much insane at this point. A cardiologist nor a general MD are experts in vaccines or 100 year pandemics. They're very specialized in their specific line of work.
But also, when did he tell you that, and with what information? Because if we were looking at an 80 year vaccine timeline that might have made sense.
It was August and was in the context that he didn't like wearing a mask. I assume he had the information that a vaccine was being developed. Even if it had been 8 months ago, the herd immunity angle was never given much weight to my knowledge.
I would seriously consider finding a new doctor. If a doctor is balking at wearing a mask during a pandemic, then I have concerns about their knowledge and judgement.
-
It doesn't take a lot more cases of Bell's Palsy to suddenly be statistically above the normal rate in the population. It could happen, but so could a lot of things.
And that is a problem. It's very likely something will be higher than normal in the first million people per vaccine, without it being a real increase in cases. That is just how propability works. And 90% of people will take that as "vaccine causes..."
And of course the opposite is possible too: The vaccine may rarely cause something (like Bell's Palsy) but a statistical butterfly might blow away the normal background numbers and it isn't found out for a while.
Statistics is a bitch, even if you fake them yourself!
-
May be a good read for some curious people / thread posters here? Author Ed Yong twitter thread on his article in The Atlantic:
https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/1338469107008679936 (https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/1338469107008679936)
The article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/science-covid-19-manhattan-project/617262/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/science-covid-19-manhattan-project/617262/)
-
I think someone can be concerned about the vaccine being rushed and possible yet-to-be-discovered side effects without being considered an “anti-vaccine” type of person.
For young healthy people with low risks, they may believe that their risk of catching the disease and recovering is better than taking a vaccine that has been pushed through an approval process way quicker than normal protocol.
I’m personally on not sure I want to be the first in line to get this. If I was old or high risk it’d be a very different story.
Also, my wife is pregnant, and at this point I’m unsure if the vaccine would be good for her. Will be a conversation with her OBGYN and my friends wife who is a pulmonologist at much of the forefront of this issue.
-
For those worried about the "untested" mRNA technology (it's not, as has been mentioned by several posters), there will be several options for vaccines based on more traditional vaccine technology. These include not only the Oxford vaccine which has been mentioned, but also the Johnson & Johnson and I believe AstraZeneca vaccines. These took slightly longer to develop, so they weren't the first ones approved, but I expect to see several available by the time most of us are allowed to get it anyway.
Regarding the timeline of phase III trials, there are two major factors that usually contribute to how long the trail takes. How difficult it is to get volunteers to enter the study, and how quickly people in the placebo group get the disease. For most vaccines, recruiting enough volunteers takes several years, especially if the company is being conscientious about getting a good distribution of ages, races, and co-morbidities. For the second point, diseases that are less common or less transmissible take much longer to get statistically significant differences in the infection rates between the two groups, because it takes that long for people in the placebo group to get the disease. In this case, the spiking rates of infection helped the studies get the needed efficacy data faster, which allowed the trials to be shorter.
-
I think someone can be concerned about the vaccine being rushed and possible yet-to-be-discovered side effects without being considered an “anti-vaccine” type of person.
For young healthy people with low risks, they may believe that their risk of catching the disease and recovering is better than taking a vaccine that has been pushed through an approval process way quicker than normal protocol.
I’m personally on not sure I want to be the first in line to get this. If I was old or high risk it’d be a very different story.
Also, my wife is pregnant, and at this point I’m unsure if the vaccine would be good for her. Will be a conversation with her OBGYN and my friends wife who is a pulmonologist at much of the forefront of this issue.
I would think that your wife being pregnant is all the more reason for you to get the vax ASAP. Presumably she spends far more time (and especially unmasked, close contact time) with you than anyone else. So it stands to reason that you are the person she is most likely to get it from. If you can't bring it home to her (that presupposes the vax prevents transmission, which is admittedly not proven) she is much safer since she likely can't get the vaccine. And then your fragile newborn infant, who also won't be vaccinated, is also safer because one parents can't bring Covid home.
Also, the point about young healthy people misses a point that I think is at the crux of the US Covid problem. That's entirely about one's self. I'm not old, I'm otherwise healthy. Chances are that if I got Covid, I'd be fine. But I still am probably the most locked down person I know. That's not about keeping myself safe. It's about contributing to the safety of my community. So those young, healthy people who get vaccinated are preventing their elderly neighbor and the immuno-compromised mail carrier from getting Covid.
Is there some risk associated with it? Sure. There's several words to describe someone unwilling to take on an objectively very small risk in order to help other people. None of them are especially flattering. If we call keep thinking about what's in it for us, we will continue to be screwed for much longer.
-
^^^ Exactly. My aunt is older but not a good candidate for the vaccine because she gets severe allergic reactions. I'll get it ASAP so I can do my part to keep her and other people like her safe.
-
The more I read about how the phizer and moderna vaccine were designed, it makes me feel more comfortable about getting the vaccine. And the more I learn about covid and that it appears to have long term effects in a pretty big percentage of even those who were not hit hard, motivates me to want to avoid getting covid. Heart, kidney, and concerning neurological effects. Basically there is no such thing as zero risk. But at least at this time the risk of the vaccine is by magnitude less than contracting covid.
-
Ignorance - the vast majority of people don't understand the science of the vaccine or the math regarding COVID, and that it's not just about yourself or "death" but other poor outcomes as well, regardless of how healthy you or someone else might be.
I'll get it as soon as it's my turn.
-
Ignorance - the vast majority of people don't understand the science of the vaccine or the math regarding COVID, and that it's not just about yourself or "death" but other poor outcomes as well, regardless of how healthy you or someone else might be.
I'll get it as soon as it's my turn.
https://abc13.com/health/34%25-of-nurses-will-take-covid-19-vaccine-survey-says-/8421752/ (https://abc13.com/health/34%25-of-nurses-will-take-covid-19-vaccine-survey-says-/8421752/))
Bunch of ignorant fools! Obviously they don't have an understanding of science, medicine, or the coronavirus.
-
Sanofi announced that their vaccine will not be produced with 1 billion units in 2021. Instead the release will be pushed back a year.
Reason is that it does not work as intended for age 50+ people. The immune reaction there is lacking.
The Sanofi vaccina is a very "conventional" one.
-
Ignorance - the vast majority of people don't understand the science of the vaccine or the math regarding COVID, and that it's not just about yourself or "death" but other poor outcomes as well, regardless of how healthy you or someone else might be.
I'll get it as soon as it's my turn.
https://abc13.com/health/34%25-of-nurses-will-take-covid-19-vaccine-survey-says-/8421752/ (https://abc13.com/health/34%25-of-nurses-will-take-covid-19-vaccine-survey-says-/8421752/))
Bunch of ignorant fools! Obviously they don't have an understanding of science, medicine, or the coronavirus.
Yes, and I work in health care and was talking about this the other day with a co-worker. It leaves me shaking my head in disbelief about people you would think would know better on the surface. Of course, working with these people, I'm not actually surprised. Some wouldn't get a flu shot, either, until we mandated it. The good news is that more are turning around as they actually grasp the facts, so at least most show they are capable of learning, and we are trending in the right direction.
Edited to add:
Ha, just saw this article posted a little bit ago.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/17/covid-vaccine-hospital-ceos-see-skeptical-employees-eventually-taking-it.html
Hospital CEOs expressed confidence Thursday that the hesitancy among some employees around Covid-19 vaccinations will fade over time.
“I believe as they get educated, they’ll take it,” Will Ferniany, CEO of Alabama’s UAB Health System, told CNBC.
-
Pretty sure there'll be lots of social pressure to get vaccinated.
Want to go on an airplane? Let's see your proof of vaccination.
Want to go to school? Need proof of vaccination.
Want to go on a cruise? ...
Want to enter my storefront without a mask?!?
-
Ignorance - the vast majority of people don't understand the science of the vaccine or the math regarding COVID, and that it's not just about yourself or "death" but other poor outcomes as well, regardless of how healthy you or someone else might be.
I'll get it as soon as it's my turn.
https://abc13.com/health/34%25-of-nurses-will-take-covid-19-vaccine-survey-says-/8421752/ (https://abc13.com/health/34%25-of-nurses-will-take-covid-19-vaccine-survey-says-/8421752/))
Bunch of ignorant fools! Obviously they don't have an understanding of science, medicine, or the coronavirus.
I don't think this is really indicative of anything. I've found a surprising number of medical professionals who may not be avid anti-maskers but at the very least are not nearly as supportive of masks/distancing as the broad medical view on what should be done would indicate.
-
Pretty sure there'll be lots of social pressure to get vaccinated.
Want to go on an airplane? Let's see your proof of vaccination.
Want to go to school? Need proof of vaccination.
Want to go on a cruise? ...
Want to enter my storefront without a mask?!?
Yeah, there's a very good chance this all dissipates quite quickly as it starts being the norm that people just get it.
Hell, I used to think that nobody reasonable would want to get into a questionably maintained car with a potentially inexperienced driver who has little to lose in terms of career if something goes wrong, but hey, Uber proved me wrong.
I think if it becomes inconvenient to not be vaccinated, doubts will rapidly fade for most people.
But again, I was super wrong about Uber.
-
Pretty sure there'll be lots of social pressure to get vaccinated.
Want to go on an airplane? Let's see your proof of vaccination.
Want to go to school? Need proof of vaccination.
Want to go on a cruise? ...
Want to enter my storefront without a mask?!?
Yeah, there's a very good chance this all dissipates quite quickly as it starts being the norm that people just get it.
Hell, I used to think that nobody reasonable would want to get into a questionably maintained car with a potentially inexperienced driver who has little to lose in terms of career if something goes wrong, but hey, Uber proved me wrong.
I think if it becomes inconvenient to not be vaccinated, doubts will rapidly fade for most people.
But again, I was super wrong about Uber.
To be fair, lots of people have been in cars with their 15-year old kids who have learners permits and need to get 50+ hours of practice drive time, and that's ... er, .... not super-pleasant. Even if you know the car's been well maintained. So some of us have had our objections abraded off, as far as the whole driving thing goes... (To be extra-fair, I've been in an Uber perhaps twice in my life, so I'm not the right person to be making this argument, honestly.)
I'd also be looking for a new doctor, if mine was pooh-poohing the whole mask/vaccine thing. But I'd prefer a doctor who can understand basic statistics to one who's all touchy-feely, which makes me in the vast minority around here in Hippistan.
-
Pretty sure there'll be lots of social pressure to get vaccinated.
Want to go on an airplane? Let's see your proof of vaccination.
Want to go to school? Need proof of vaccination.
Want to go on a cruise? ...
Want to enter my storefront without a mask?!?
Yeah, there's a very good chance this all dissipates quite quickly as it starts being the norm that people just get it.
Hell, I used to think that nobody reasonable would want to get into a questionably maintained car with a potentially inexperienced driver who has little to lose in terms of career if something goes wrong, but hey, Uber proved me wrong.
I think if it becomes inconvenient to not be vaccinated, doubts will rapidly fade for most people.
But again, I was super wrong about Uber.
Be happy, Uber won't be with us for very long anymore. They got themselves a money infusion a year ago from some stupidedly rich stupids, but that money seems to already have used. Uber sold a few of their assets (not that they have much), including their self-driving department.
You know, for a company that has always promised that is will be profitable once they have self-driving cars (instead of losing billions), selling the self-driving department is... the beginng of the end, I would say.
Interestingly their stock price got up 40%. Even though Uber is still not profitable and likely never will be without self-driving cars.
-
Pretty sure there'll be lots of social pressure to get vaccinated.
Want to go on an airplane? Let's see your proof of vaccination.
Want to go to school? Need proof of vaccination.
Want to go on a cruise? ...
Want to enter my storefront without a mask?!?
Yeah, there's a very good chance this all dissipates quite quickly as it starts being the norm that people just get it.
Hell, I used to think that nobody reasonable would want to get into a questionably maintained car with a potentially inexperienced driver who has little to lose in terms of career if something goes wrong, but hey, Uber proved me wrong.
I think if it becomes inconvenient to not be vaccinated, doubts will rapidly fade for most people.
But again, I was super wrong about Uber.
Be happy, Uber won't be with us for very long anymore. They got themselves a money infusion a year ago from some stupidedly rich stupids, but that money seems to already have used. Uber sold a few of their assets (not that they have much), including their self-driving department.
You know, for a company that has always promised that is will be profitable once they have self-driving cars (instead of losing billions), selling the self-driving department is... the beginng of the end, I would say.
Interestingly their stock price got up 40%. Even though Uber is still not profitable and likely never will be without self-driving cars.
So did you short them? Put your money were your mouth is?
-
Pretty sure there'll be lots of social pressure to get vaccinated.
Want to go on an airplane? Let's see your proof of vaccination.
Want to go to school? Need proof of vaccination.
Want to go on a cruise? ...
Want to enter my storefront without a mask?!?
Yeah, there's a very good chance this all dissipates quite quickly as it starts being the norm that people just get it.
Hell, I used to think that nobody reasonable would want to get into a questionably maintained car with a potentially inexperienced driver who has little to lose in terms of career if something goes wrong, but hey, Uber proved me wrong.
I think if it becomes inconvenient to not be vaccinated, doubts will rapidly fade for most people.
But again, I was super wrong about Uber.
Be happy, Uber won't be with us for very long anymore. They got themselves a money infusion a year ago from some stupidedly rich stupids, but that money seems to already have used. Uber sold a few of their assets (not that they have much), including their self-driving department.
You know, for a company that has always promised that is will be profitable once they have self-driving cars (instead of losing billions), selling the self-driving department is... the beginng of the end, I would say.
Interestingly their stock price got up 40%. Even though Uber is still not profitable and likely never will be without self-driving cars.
So did you short them? Put your money were your mouth is?
I don't do shorts. Especially not single stocks. You know, broad market, general uptrend in long term, that stuff.
Besides, being confident about a business model not viable from a 30 minute "research" is not enough in my eyes to put money at risk (at any big scale).
I also don't bet money, but if I would, I would have no problem betting $10 with you that Uber will either be bankrupt in 5 years or changed so much it's basically a different company (like a traditional taxi company).
But what do you think?
Do you think a company that loses hundreds of millions (or even billion(s)) per year and which profitability is based on the availability of self-driving cars (which they afaik predicted for "by 2020" to their initial investors) is going to be profitable in the near future? Because at the moment, every time you take a Uber drive, the company loses money. (And it isn't exactly a good job for the divers, too.)
-
I'm a front line worker and will get the vaccine as soon as anyone will give it to me. I am constantly in contact with people who DO NOT grasp any notions of social distancing, mask wearing or self care at all (i.e. mentally ill addicts with bigger problems). It's an ongoing work safety issue and it stresses me out, I cannot WAIT to get the vaccine.
I read recently that the International Air Travel Association is working on a Vaccine Travel Pass Initiative (https://www.iata.org/en/programs/passenger/travel-pass/). So people who won't get a vaccine won't fly.
Many won't care because they don't travel anyway, but not being allowed to fly anywhere would tip the scales for a lot of people I think. They might bitch and moan about their god given right to endanger others because reasons, but more will get the shot.
-
I just got the Moderna vaccine yesterday because I work in health care, even though I'm a tech worker who is working from home most days and have no contact with patients and don't do any clinical work. But many of my co-workers, even who work directly with patients, are scared to get it, at least for now.
No side effects from inoculation time through now, 23 hours later, other than very mild soreness at the injection site.
-
Wooot! Keep us posted on what happens when you get your second injection in 3? weeks... And whether you get infected or not!
-
Wooot! Keep us posted on what happens when you get your second injection in 3? weeks... And whether you get infected or not!
Will do. It's 28 days with Moderna for the second dose.
-
Hypothetical ethical situation. Fill in XXs that allows you to make this statement true for you:
"It is an ethically better situation if XX develop bad long term side effects (not many noted right now) of any COVID-19 vaccine than having XX more COVID-19 deaths and XX with long term consequences from having COVID-19 (many well noted)."
My greatest fear for the vaccine is when inoculations reaches a plateau that is enough to create premature complacency but not enough to fully keep it from spreading within at-risk populations (elder care facilities, poor communities, etc.). The result of this happening is we can still have more COVID deaths in 2021 if this is the case. These would be deaths that might have been totally preventable if even half of the 'concerned' skeptics took the vaccine.
-
Hypothetical ethical situation. Fill in XXs that allows you to make this statement true for you:
"It is an ethically better situation if XX develop bad long term side effects (not many noted right now) of any COVID-19 vaccine than having XX more COVID-19 deaths and XX with long term consequences from having COVID-19 (many well noted)."
My greatest fear for the vaccine is when inoculations reaches a plateau that is enough to create premature complacency but not enough to fully keep it from spreading within at-risk populations (elder care facilities, poor communities, etc.). The result of this happening is we can still have more COVID deaths in 2021 if this is the case. These would be deaths that might have been totally preventable if even half of the 'concerned' skeptics took the vaccine.
Given the multiple mutations we're now seeing all over the world, vaccination for single strain may not be as effective as we once hoped anyway.
-
Hypothetical ethical situation. Fill in XXs that allows you to make this statement true for you:
"It is an ethically better situation if XX develop bad long term side effects (not many noted right now) of any COVID-19 vaccine than having XX more COVID-19 deaths and XX with long term consequences from having COVID-19 (many well noted)."
My greatest fear for the vaccine is when inoculations reaches a plateau that is enough to create premature complacency but not enough to fully keep it from spreading within at-risk populations (elder care facilities, poor communities, etc.). The result of this happening is we can still have more COVID deaths in 2021 if this is the case. These would be deaths that might have been totally preventable if even half of the 'concerned' skeptics took the vaccine.
Given the multiple mutations we're now seeing all over the world, vaccination for single strain may not be as effective as we once hoped anyway.
I believe I read that the UK mutation is still covered by the vaccine. Here's hoping that stays true for any other mutations.
-
I believe I read that the UK mutation is still covered by the vaccine. Here's hoping that stays true for any other mutations.
Exactly. This is not like the flu vaccine. There are many variants of flu that make vaccination against it harder (hence H1N1, H3N2, etc.). So far there is no indication that the mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change the targeted sequence of the mRNA vaccine. Read up on the mRNA vaccines - they are literally creating the sequence that is needed (and it is done very efficiently). If indeed there is a mutation they can adjust it very rapidly compared to the older vaccine variants.
And be assured sequencing of COVID-19 patients is still ongoing. They will be able to tell instantly if the mutation is in the sequence that is used in the Pfiezer or Moderna vaccine. It won't be ambiguous. Also, I might add. On Jan 11, 2020 China published the first sequence of SARS-CoV-2. All vaccines created today are based on that original sequence. If there was evidence that any mutation since then made a vaccine ineffective they would have changed it. We wouldn't have a vaccine EUA today if that was the case. The vaccines are very robust to these mutations so far.
However, the biggest unknown is still long-term efficacy. If it wears off after 5 months then this will drag out. If the vaccine is good for a couple years then we have a chance to really change our lives. And I'll repeat myself, the other biggest fear is if we just end up having poor vaccination % in the US (at least where I live) for years and it continues to seed itself in the at-risk communities.
-
Given the multiple mutations we're now seeing all over the world, vaccination for single strain may not be as effective as we once hoped anyway.
This is factually untrue
-
Given the multiple mutations we're now seeing all over the world, vaccination for single strain may not be as effective as we once hoped anyway.
This is factually untrue
Relevant article with some technical details about the UK variant:
Genetics experts worry coronavirus vaccines might not work quite as well against UK variant
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/23/health/coronavirus-uk-variant-vaccines-less-effective-prevent-covid-19/index.html
Bedford said, "It might decrease vaccine efficacy from 95% to something like 80% or 85%," he said. "It would be a modest effect, not a dramatic effect."
-
Given the multiple mutations we're now seeing all over the world, vaccination for single strain may not be as effective as we once hoped anyway.
This is factually untrue
Relevant article with some technical details about the UK variant:
Genetics experts worry coronavirus vaccines might not work quite as well against UK variant
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/23/health/coronavirus-uk-variant-vaccines-less-effective-prevent-covid-19/index.html
Bedford said, "It might decrease vaccine efficacy from 95% to something like 80% or 85%," he said. "It would be a modest effect, not a dramatic effect."
Read the article more. It is still correct at this point that it is factually untrue that the vaccine is ineffective against the mutations. They just say it is "plausible" to have an effect. And of course they are worried about it. Keep in mind everyone would have been happy to to have 70% efficacy. The fact we had 95% is completely astounding. Even 80-85% efficacy is a very good vaccine!
I do not doubt that the thousands working in gov and drug companies are completely aware and staying on top of the mutations. The biologics are sound though, and those are underlying reasons why there is not as much concern about it right now. I think it is completely misleading to suggest it is not as effective at this point.
-
Given the multiple mutations we're now seeing all over the world, vaccination for single strain may not be as effective as we once hoped anyway.
This is factually untrue
Relevant article with some technical details about the UK variant:
Genetics experts worry coronavirus vaccines might not work quite as well against UK variant
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/23/health/coronavirus-uk-variant-vaccines-less-effective-prevent-covid-19/index.html
Bedford said, "It might decrease vaccine efficacy from 95% to something like 80% or 85%," he said. "It would be a modest effect, not a dramatic effect."
Read the article more. It is still correct at this point that it is factually untrue that the vaccine is ineffective against the mutations. They just say it is "plausible" to have an effect. And of course they are worried about it. Keep in mind everyone would have been happy to to have 70% efficacy. The fact we had 95% is completely astounding. Even 80-85% efficacy is a very good vaccine!
I do not doubt that the thousands working in gov and drug companies are completely aware and staying on top of the mutations. The biologics are sound though, and those are underlying reasons why there is not as much concern about it right now. I think it is completely misleading to suggest it is not as effective at this point.
Read the post that you quoted (and then bolded) a little more closely. There was nothing factually inaccurate in it.
The UK variant is one variant. Others (like the South African variety) have also emerged, and more will continue to do so. Hopefully we get enough vaccine out quickly enough to limit transmission (and thus the opportunity for continued mutation) over the next six months or so.
-
Given the multiple mutations we're now seeing all over the world, vaccination for single strain may not be as effective as we once hoped anyway.
This is factually untrue
Relevant article with some technical details about the UK variant:
Genetics experts worry coronavirus vaccines might not work quite as well against UK variant
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/23/health/coronavirus-uk-variant-vaccines-less-effective-prevent-covid-19/index.html
Bedford said, "It might decrease vaccine efficacy from 95% to something like 80% or 85%," he said. "It would be a modest effect, not a dramatic effect."
Read the article more. It is still correct at this point that it is factually untrue that the vaccine is ineffective against the mutations.
I read it entirely before linking to it, but it looks like you need to read my post and the other that you responded to, because neither my post, Guitar Steve's post, nor the article I linked to said the vaccine is ineffective, even against the UK variant, and I don't know that anyone ever claimed that to be the case. In fact, the quote from one of the experts in my comment that you replied to specifically said it might be something like 80% to 85% effective against the particular variant mentioned. So, you're arguing against a point that no one ever tried to make - that the vaccine is ineffective against mutations. That's ridiculous.
-
None of the above.
Not an antivaxxer, but this happened too fast. Not dependent on my political affiliation (conservative, but happy Trump lost).
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/26/ten-reasons-we-got-covid-19-vaccines-so-quickly-without-cutting-corners (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/26/ten-reasons-we-got-covid-19-vaccines-so-quickly-without-cutting-corners)
Good explainer of factors for vaccine speed.
-
Read the post that you quoted (and then bolded) a little more closely. There was nothing factually inaccurate in it.
The UK variant is one variant. Others (like the South African variety) have also emerged, and more will continue to do so. Hopefully we get enough vaccine out quickly enough to limit transmission (and thus the opportunity for continued mutation) over the next six months or so.
The way I read your post I bolded was, paraphrasing so you can understand how it comes across to me: "With SARS-CoV-2 mutations these vaccines are not going to be effective anymore as we hoped". This is factually untrue. Even your last post, saying stuff like "over the next six months" implies you think the vaccine won't be working six months from now with all these mutations and different strains. Again, this has not been proved. In fact, the opposite has been found that a global vaccine is robust to these mutations.
All viruses mutate. What matters is whether the mutations are in the area important to a vaccine. There was a major mutation back in the spring. Here is a journal article saying those were not going to impact a global vaccine A SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate would likely match all currently circulating variants (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/38/23652). The point at the time was, while there were significant mutations back then, the sequence of virus across all variants is fairly homogeneous. That was a characteristic of the virus then and it still is today until I read otherwise. Just saying there are mutations doesn't mean anything.
-
For anyone concerned about the COVID-19 strains you should look into other viruses and vaccines. Look at measles.
Measles:
- Why you need one vaccine for measles and many for the flu (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/cp-wyn051515.php)
"The measles virus can not function with mutations in the surface proteins that it uses to enter cells" - Myths about measles vaccines (https://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20150210/measles-vaccine-myths#1)
"There are different strains of measles virus. Each is given a letter and a number, for example B3 or D4. They refer to the genetic fingerprint of the virus. Since 1990, 19 different strains, or fingerprints, have been identified, according to the CDC, and scientists use these fingerprints to link infections during an outbreak."
"The measles virus doesn't change as much. So showing the immune system one type of it through the vaccine is enough to protect the body against all types."
There is plenty of biological reasons to suggest the COVID-19 vaccine will cover all strains we are finding in different areas. Until someone says otherwise, all indication is the vaccine is robust.
-
None of the above.
Not an antivaxxer, but this happened too fast. Not dependent on my political affiliation (conservative, but happy Trump lost).
Are you more comfortable with the potential long term side effects of COVID than the possible side effects of getting the vaccine?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351
-
None of the above.
Not an antivaxxer, but this happened too fast. Not dependent on my political affiliation (conservative, but happy Trump lost).
Are you more comfortable with the potential long term side effects of COVID than the possible side effects of getting the vaccine?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351
"Potential" and "possible." I'm mid 30s and am quite healthy. I don't see this as necessary, the virus seems to affect old, sick, or immunocompromised people. As far as I know the vaccines are only addressing the severity of sickness, not transmission. Even if I get the vaccine, the transmission to at risk people is still a possibility. Being young, I'm not at risk.
I don't trust the politicians. The same ones who could have stopped this in it's tracks being we had months long headstart, the same ones who stuffed infected people into nursing homes containing the most at risk people, these same idiots now expect me to conform and may even allow my employer to force me to vaccinate as a condition of employment. I'm livid. If this thing works, we shouldn't be forced into it. As a provaxxer who's got flu shots for years, have zero problem with getting my kids immunizations on time....I never thought things would be like this. I wonder how many others trust is on tenuous ground now due to the way this virus was handled from start to finish. I don't think Democrats would have done much better, as it's not a partisan problem, but one of hubris and ignorance.
If the vaccines work, this may go down as one of the great accomplishments in science however, and I'll eat my words.
-
If the vaccines work, this may go down as one of the great accomplishments in science however, and I'll eat my words.
What will be acceptable evidence in your mind that the vaccine worked? With word eating on the line... you better define working :)
-
If the vaccines work, this may go down as one of the great accomplishments in science however, and I'll eat my words.
What will be acceptable evidence in your mind that the vaccine worked? With word eating on the line... you better define working :)
Well, the vaccines already work according to the studies. If they actually accomplish what they're designed for for (outside the lab) I'll be happy.
-
Read the post that you quoted (and then bolded) a little more closely. There was nothing factually inaccurate in it.
The UK variant is one variant. Others (like the South African variety) have also emerged, and more will continue to do so. Hopefully we get enough vaccine out quickly enough to limit transmission (and thus the opportunity for continued mutation) over the next six months or so.
The way I read your post I bolded was, paraphrasing so you can understand how it comes across to me: "With SARS-CoV-2 mutations these vaccines are not going to be effective anymore as we hoped". This is factually untrue. Even your last post, saying stuff like "over the next six months" implies you think the vaccine won't be working six months from now with all these mutations and different strains. Again, this has not been proved. In fact, the opposite has been found that a global vaccine is robust to these mutations.
All viruses mutate. What matters is whether the mutations are in the area important to a vaccine. There was a major mutation back in the spring. Here is a journal article saying those were not going to impact a global vaccine A SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate would likely match all currently circulating variants (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/38/23652). The point at the time was, while there were significant mutations back then, the sequence of virus across all variants is fairly homogeneous. That was a characteristic of the virus then and it still is today until I read otherwise. Just saying there are mutations doesn't mean anything.
What you said and what they said--"may not be as effective as we once hoped"--simply do not mean the same thing. Their words contain a clear comparison to "now" and "what we once hoped", and say that the latter *may* not be AS good/much as the former.
Your words say it may not be effective anymore--and implicit in "effective" is "at all". That's not the same thing. Not effective vs. not *as* effective are different things, and quite clearly so.
-
"Potential" and "possible." I'm mid 30s and am quite healthy. I don't see this as necessary, the virus seems to affect old, sick, or immunocompromised people. As far as I know the vaccines are only addressing the severity of sickness, not transmission. Even if I get the vaccine, the transmission to at risk people is still a possibility. Being young, I'm not at risk.
You are still at risk, even if you are younger. I worked with a very young healthy guy that got seriously ill, went to the hospital, and now weeks later still has breathing problems. There are many cases of young healthy people getting ill and some dying. And also remember, if you become infected with COVID, you are likely to spread it to other people that are at greater risk.
No one ever expected the vaccine to be 100% effective, so it's always been expected that you could still become infected and shed virus to others. But you're far less likely to become infected if you are vaccinated, and also far less likely to have as serious of symptoms.
The vaccine alone can't accomplish anything. It takes vaccinations for that to happen. And it will help if people stop making excuses not to take it. I've had it, and it's a very mild instant pin prick of pain followed by very mild pain at the injection site for a couple days. It will prevent a lot worse! I've heard it will be in the range of 70% to 85% vaccination rate among the public in order to provide herd immunity.
-
Read the post that you quoted (and then bolded) a little more closely. There was nothing factually inaccurate in it.
The UK variant is one variant. Others (like the South African variety) have also emerged, and more will continue to do so. Hopefully we get enough vaccine out quickly enough to limit transmission (and thus the opportunity for continued mutation) over the next six months or so.
The way I read your post I bolded was, paraphrasing so you can understand how it comes across to me: "With SARS-CoV-2 mutations these vaccines are not going to be effective anymore as we hoped". This is factually untrue. Even your last post, saying stuff like "over the next six months" implies you think the vaccine won't be working six months from now with all these mutations and different strains. Again, this has not been proved. In fact, the opposite has been found that a global vaccine is robust to these mutations.
All viruses mutate. What matters is whether the mutations are in the area important to a vaccine. There was a major mutation back in the spring. Here is a journal article saying those were not going to impact a global vaccine A SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate would likely match all currently circulating variants (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/38/23652). The point at the time was, while there were significant mutations back then, the sequence of virus across all variants is fairly homogeneous. That was a characteristic of the virus then and it still is today until I read otherwise. Just saying there are mutations doesn't mean anything.
What you said and what they said--"may not be as effective as we once hoped"--simply do not mean the same thing. Their words contain a clear comparison to "now" and "what we once hoped", and say that the latter *may* not be AS good/much as the former.
Your words say it may not be effective anymore--and implicit in "effective" is "at all". That's not the same thing. Not effective vs. not *as* effective are different things, and quite clearly so.
They are different. But in today's conversation bringing up 'as effective' without quantification, to me, essentially means saying not effective. The CNN article posted was saying *may* go down to 80-85% effective, which is still an absolutely marvelous vaccine. For those who want to bring up the vaccine not be "as effective" please quantify what you mean. Does that mean it is the difference between a home run that is a 450 ft slammer or a 302 ft one that just clears Fenway park's right field fence? Regardless, it still gets the job done. Or are we talking about not as effective meaning it is like the flu vaccine? Or, that its efficacy is down to the point it is better to just not get the vaccine?
-
"Potential" and "possible." I'm mid 30s and am quite healthy. I don't see this as necessary, the virus seems to affect old, sick, or immunocompromised people. As far as I know the vaccines are only addressing the severity of sickness, not transmission. Even if I get the vaccine, the transmission to at risk people is still a possibility. Being young, I'm not at risk.
You are still at risk, even if you are younger. I worked with a very young healthy guy that got seriously ill, went to the hospital, and now weeks later still has breathing problems. There are many cases of young healthy people getting ill and some dying. And also remember, if you become infected with COVID, you are likely to spread it to other people that are at greater risk.
No one ever expected the vaccine to be 100% effective, so it's always been expected that you could still become infected and shed virus to others. But you're far less likely to become infected if you are vaccinated, and also far less likely to have as serious of symptoms.
The vaccine alone can't accomplish anything. It takes vaccinations for that to happen. And it will help if people stop making excuses not to take it. I've had it, and it's a very mild instant pin prick of pain followed by very mild pain at the injection site for a couple days. It will prevent a lot worse! I've heard it will be in the range of 70% to 85% vaccination rate among the public in order to provide herd immunity.
My otherwise healthy 42-year-old former classmate died of COVID earlier this month. My friend’s husband—early 40s, no underlying conditions, athletic—had it earlier this fall and was bedridden with a high (minimum 101°F) fever for 2 straight weeks and was sick and weak for much longer. I don’t know about most of these COVID deniers, but I don’t have the time or desire to be that sick for that long. I have a management position and a non-profit board role and a parent with cancer, i.e., people who rely on me. I’m getting the vaccine as soon as I can.
-
"Potential" and "possible." I'm mid 30s and am quite healthy. I don't see this as necessary, the virus seems to affect old, sick, or immunocompromised people. As far as I know the vaccines are only addressing the severity of sickness, not transmission. Even if I get the vaccine, the transmission to at risk people is still a possibility. Being young, I'm not at risk.
You are still at risk, even if you are younger. I worked with a very young healthy guy that got seriously ill, went to the hospital, and now weeks later still has breathing problems. There are many cases of young healthy people getting ill and some dying.
So true. @Johnez read up on what they are calling "long-haul" COVID patients. There are thousands of these patients. Your chances of becoming one are low, indeed. But the chances of having any fringe effects from a vaccine are much lower.
The vaccine alone can't accomplish anything. It takes vaccinations for that to happen. And it will help if people stop making excuses not to take it. I've had it, and it's a very mild instant pin prick of pain followed by very mild pain at the injection site for a couple days. It will prevent a lot worse! I've heard it will be in the range of 70% to 85% vaccination rate among the public in order to provide herd immunity.
We have been given a chance to completely change the game this year with this incredible scientific advancement, but only if we reach the vaccination rate for herd immunity. Otherwise I fear it will still run rampant.
-
I agree. It's hard to see how covid-19 will go away as long as there's a significant population that's susceptible to it. Or until we're all willing to consider much more aggressive lockdowns than anything we've seen in North America (similar to China anyone?)
-
"Potential" and "possible." I'm mid 30s and am quite healthy. I don't see this as necessary, the virus seems to affect old, sick, or immunocompromised people. As far as I know the vaccines are only addressing the severity of sickness, not transmission. Even if I get the vaccine, the transmission to at risk people is still a possibility. Being young, I'm not at risk.
You are still at risk, even if you are younger. I worked with a very young healthy guy that got seriously ill, went to the hospital, and now weeks later still has breathing problems. There are many cases of young healthy people getting ill and some dying.
So true. @Johnez read up on what they are calling "long-haul" COVID patients. There are thousands of these patients. Your chances of becoming one are low, indeed. But the chances of having any fringe effects from a vaccine are much lower.
The vaccine alone can't accomplish anything. It takes vaccinations for that to happen. And it will help if people stop making excuses not to take it. I've had it, and it's a very mild instant pin prick of pain followed by very mild pain at the injection site for a couple days. It will prevent a lot worse! I've heard it will be in the range of 70% to 85% vaccination rate among the public in order to provide herd immunity.
We have been given a chance to completely change the game this year with this incredible scientific advancement, but only if we reach the vaccination rate for herd immunity. Otherwise I fear it will still run rampant.
Yep, long COVID (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/15/long-covid-what-we-know-so-far). There doesn’t seem to be a way to predict who will be affected by it. Not a risk I’m willing to take.
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
Well, right, that is the one requirement that the skeptics in the U.S. can't fight. It will be interesting to see how requirements are rolled out in the U.S., from universities to workforces.
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel. The airports and planes have the same risks either way.
-
All of the Covid skeptics I have encountered have displayed some fundamental misunderstanding of at least one aspect of the vaccine/s. So, that's one characteristic of "who they are."
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel. The airports and planes have the same risks either way.
Except that the constitution (both US and Canada, amirite?) guarantees freedom of travel domestically. I guess it doesn't include freedom of *air* travel though!
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel. The airports and planes have the same risks either way.
I'd say international flights are riskier than domestic ones because they tend to be longer, so you're exposed to risk for much longer and to many people who could be from anywhere in the world.
I imagine there is a subset of vaccine skeptics who would quickly change their minds if staying unvaccinated meant they couldn't go on an European holiday, for example.
-
Colorado identifies first known case of UK coronavirus variant in US
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html
-
"Potential" and "possible." I'm mid 30s and am quite healthy. I don't see this as necessary, the virus seems to affect old, sick, or immunocompromised people.
Yes. And young, sporty, healthy ones, too. Or for that matter children. Just less often.
As far as I know the vaccines are only addressing the severity of sickness, not transmission.
Please inform yourself what a vaccine is in contrast to a symptom-relieving medication.
Even if I get the vaccine, the transmission to at risk people is still a possibility.
Yes. The vaccine may not work for you. But the risk is a lot less, not to mention the infection chain breaking effect.
Being young, I'm not at risk.
Wrong again. It does not get right if you repeat it 10 times.
Generally, about the "I am young and healthy so it does not affect me":
Tell that to the olympic winner who only had a very mild case (not even really symptoms) and is still struggling to get back to former performance. In his words "I first thought they had bound the girdle (with the tech) wrong and told them to get it off me. I felt like I was suffocating just running at a speed I would have thought very slow a few weeks ago."
-
Speaking of young and healthy: Louisiana Congressman-elect Luke Letlow dead from COVID-19 (AP News) (https://apnews.com/article/health-monroe-louisiana-coronavirus-pandemic-shreveport-c76bcda2e5abd46a500763ed5a7e3440)
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Luke Letlow, Louisiana’s incoming Republican member of the U.S. House, died Tuesday night from complications related to COVID-19 only days before he would have been sworn into office. He was 41.
The mayor of my city also died of COVID last night. He was 70 but very possibly got it from someone "healthy" who was not showing symptoms. Just like masks, the vaccine won't only protect the vaccinated person. That's the point of herd immunity.
-
And even survival doesn't mean no complications: He Was Hospitalized for Covid-19. Then Hospitalized Again. And Again. (NY Times) (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/health/covid-hospital-readmissions.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)
The routine things in Chris Long’s life used to include biking 30 miles three times a week and taking courses toward a Ph.D. in eight-week sessions.
But since getting sick with the coronavirus in March, Mr. Long, 54, has fallen into a distressing new cycle — one that so far has landed him in the hospital seven times.
---
Data on rehospitalizations of coronavirus patients are incomplete, but early studies suggest that in the United States alone, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands could ultimately return to the hospital.
A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of 106,543 coronavirus patients initially hospitalized between March and July found that one in 11 was readmitted within two months of being discharged, with 1.6 percent of patients readmitted more than once.
Why would you risk getting this if you could prevent it? It's viral russian roulette.
-
And even survival doesn't mean no complications: He Was Hospitalized for Covid-19. Then Hospitalized Again. And Again. (NY Times) (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/health/covid-hospital-readmissions.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)
The routine things in Chris Long’s life used to include biking 30 miles three times a week and taking courses toward a Ph.D. in eight-week sessions.
But since getting sick with the coronavirus in March, Mr. Long, 54, has fallen into a distressing new cycle — one that so far has landed him in the hospital seven times.
---
Data on rehospitalizations of coronavirus patients are incomplete, but early studies suggest that in the United States alone, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands could ultimately return to the hospital.
A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of 106,543 coronavirus patients initially hospitalized between March and July found that one in 11 was readmitted within two months of being discharged, with 1.6 percent of patients readmitted more than once.
Why would you risk getting this if you could prevent it? It's viral russian roulette.
Because people told you you’re a sheep who doesn’t think for yourself if you’re concerned about it.
Completely ignoring the fact that you’re a sheep for blindly following those who tell you not to be one. :eye roll:
-
And no one ever thinks it could happen to them... until it does.
-
And even survival doesn't mean no complications: He Was Hospitalized for Covid-19. Then Hospitalized Again. And Again. (NY Times) (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/health/covid-hospital-readmissions.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)
The routine things in Chris Long’s life used to include biking 30 miles three times a week and taking courses toward a Ph.D. in eight-week sessions.
But since getting sick with the coronavirus in March, Mr. Long, 54, has fallen into a distressing new cycle — one that so far has landed him in the hospital seven times.
---
Data on rehospitalizations of coronavirus patients are incomplete, but early studies suggest that in the United States alone, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands could ultimately return to the hospital.
A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of 106,543 coronavirus patients initially hospitalized between March and July found that one in 11 was readmitted within two months of being discharged, with 1.6 percent of patients readmitted more than once.
Why would you risk getting this if you could prevent it? It's viral russian roulette.
Because people told you you’re a sheep who doesn’t think for yourself if you’re concerned about it.
Completely ignoring the fact that you’re a sheep for blindly following those who tell you not to be one. :eye roll:
Nah, if you're worried about the virus, you're a sheep. If you blindly follow those who tell you not to be a sheep, you're a lemming. ;)
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
That wouldn’t affect me in any way, and really, tons of people don’t travel internationally.
But I am in group 1b in Ohio, and hope to get vaccinated by the end of January.
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
That wouldn’t affect me in any way, and really, tons of people don’t travel internationally.
But I am in group 1b in Ohio, and hope to get vaccinated by the end of January.
Really it should be a requirement for any flight, domestic or international. You are still exposed to crowds of people going through security. And planes have better ventilation than inter-city trains, so unless trains really up the game, they should require vaccination too.
The only reason we don't worry about catching measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella and polio is because most children are routinely vaccinated for them and most younger adults were vaccinated as children. We older adults have had them since there were no vaccines, or our parents would have had us vaccinated. After all, they also ran rampant through the community. And children got quite sick, and some had serious complications. The difference is back then there was nothing anyone could do in terms of prevention.
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel. The airports and planes have the same risks either way.
Except that the constitution (both US and Canada, amirite?) guarantees freedom of travel domestically. I guess it doesn't include freedom of *air* travel though!
That means I can walk across a boarder. It may even mean I can drive across a boarder on a public road. It certainly doesn't mean American Airlines has to sell me a ticket. Or Air Canada, I assume.
That said, in the small, non-representative sample that is my life, the venn diagram of Covid deniers/vaccine avoiders and international travelers doesn't have a lot of territory in the middle. It's the working class, non-college educated people who think the vaccine is far ore dangerous than the virus, that Covid is "just the flu", or that we need everyone to get sick so we can achieve herd immunity (and cull the herd in the process, though they tend not to actually say that part).
People who understand science, are willing to read about the vaccine and the trials and able to understand most of it, and therefore fine taking it tend to also be the ones with higher education (hmmm, I wonder if there's a correlation there? Or even causation?), and also tend to be the ones who are upper middle class or above, and have both the disposable income and the desire to travel.
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel. The airports and planes have the same risks either way.
Except that the constitution (both US and Canada, amirite?) guarantees freedom of travel domestically. I guess it doesn't include freedom of *air* travel though!
That means I can walk across a boarder. It may even mean I can drive across a boarder on a public road. It certainly doesn't mean American Airlines has to sell me a ticket. Or Air Canada, I assume.
That said, in the small, non-representative sample that is my life, the venn diagram of Covid deniers/vaccine avoiders and international travelers doesn't have a lot of territory in the middle. It's the working class, non-college educated people who think the vaccine is far ore dangerous than the virus, that Covid is "just the flu", or that we need everyone to get sick so we can achieve herd immunity (and cull the herd in the process, though they tend not to actually say that part).
People who understand science, are willing to read about the vaccine and the trials and able to understand most of it, and therefore fine taking it tend to also be the ones with higher education (hmmm, I wonder if there's a correlation there? Or even causation?), and also tend to be the ones who are upper middle class or above, and have both the disposable income and the desire to travel.
This is what I thought too... but there are a lot of well-reasoned, smart people... including many here on the MMM forums... who are very anti-"this vax".
-
Read the post that you quoted (and then bolded) a little more closely. There was nothing factually inaccurate in it.
The UK variant is one variant. Others (like the South African variety) have also emerged, and more will continue to do so. Hopefully we get enough vaccine out quickly enough to limit transmission (and thus the opportunity for continued mutation) over the next six months or so.
The way I read your post I bolded was, paraphrasing so you can understand how it comes across to me: "With SARS-CoV-2 mutations these vaccines are not going to be effective anymore as we hoped". This is factually untrue. Even your last post, saying stuff like "over the next six months" implies you think the vaccine won't be working six months from now with all these mutations and different strains. Again, this has not been proved. In fact, the opposite has been found that a global vaccine is robust to these mutations.
All viruses mutate. What matters is whether the mutations are in the area important to a vaccine. There was a major mutation back in the spring. Here is a journal article saying those were not going to impact a global vaccine A SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate would likely match all currently circulating variants (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/38/23652). The point at the time was, while there were significant mutations back then, the sequence of virus across all variants is fairly homogeneous. That was a characteristic of the virus then and it still is today until I read otherwise. Just saying there are mutations doesn't mean anything.
What you said and what they said--"may not be as effective as we once hoped"--simply do not mean the same thing. Their words contain a clear comparison to "now" and "what we once hoped", and say that the latter *may* not be AS good/much as the former.
Your words say it may not be effective anymore--and implicit in "effective" is "at all". That's not the same thing. Not effective vs. not *as* effective are different things, and quite clearly so.
They are different. But in today's conversation bringing up 'as effective' without quantification, to me, essentially means saying not effective. The CNN article posted was saying *may* go down to 80-85% effective, which is still an absolutely marvelous vaccine. For those who want to bring up the vaccine not be "as effective" please quantify what you mean. Does that mean it is the difference between a home run that is a 450 ft slammer or a 302 ft one that just clears Fenway park's right field fence? Regardless, it still gets the job done. Or are we talking about not as effective meaning it is like the flu vaccine? Or, that its efficacy is down to the point it is better to just not get the vaccine?
Then you need to beef up your reading comprehension.
Not as effective means 'not as effective'. Not effective means something quite different.
There's a sizable change when a vaccine goes from 95% effective (where one in twenty people with the vaccine can still get the disease) and 80% (where one in five people who get the vaccine can still get the disease). Both are better than nothing, but there's a clear change in effectiveness.
The longer that this virus runs unchecked, the more people will be killed by it. The more it is around the more mutations and changes will occur . . . and (as you mentioned) the vaccine is expected to be less effective on the mutated strains. About six months is a best case scenario roll-out for those of us in Canada, which is why I was hoping that most people have been vaccinated by that point.
-
Are you more comfortable with the potential long term side effects of COVID than the possible side effects of getting the vaccine?
At my particular age and situation, yes. Going no vaccine looks like it has the best risk profile. Been an interesting study looking at the risks, ages, trying to factor in everything when some of the biggest possible impacts we have the least data on. Ultimately I came out with about 70% cases pro and 30% against and I just happen to fall into one of the against slivers.
-
I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.
If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel. The airports and planes have the same risks either way.
Except that the constitution (both US and Canada, amirite?) guarantees freedom of travel domestically. I guess it doesn't include freedom of *air* travel though!
That means I can walk across a boarder. It may even mean I can drive across a boarder on a public road. It certainly doesn't mean American Airlines has to sell me a ticket. Or Air Canada, I assume.
That said, in the small, non-representative sample that is my life, the venn diagram of Covid deniers/vaccine avoiders and international travelers doesn't have a lot of territory in the middle. It's the working class, non-college educated people who think the vaccine is far ore dangerous than the virus, that Covid is "just the flu", or that we need everyone to get sick so we can achieve herd immunity (and cull the herd in the process, though they tend not to actually say that part).
People who understand science, are willing to read about the vaccine and the trials and able to understand most of it, and therefore fine taking it tend to also be the ones with higher education (hmmm, I wonder if there's a correlation there? Or even causation?), and also tend to be the ones who are upper middle class or above, and have both the disposable income and the desire to travel.
This is what I thought too... but there are a lot of well-reasoned, smart people... including many here on the MMM forums... who are very anti-"this vax".
That's scary. I think as these people get educated, and see others getting it with only minor soreness (such as myself), they will finally give in and take it, assuming they don't have any health conditions that put them at greater risk of side-effects, such as people with certain allergies or those in groups that weren't included in the trials. I think a lot of people just don't like to get shots because of that millisecond of pain from the needle and will use all sort of mental gymnastics coming up with excuses not to get it.
-
Then you need to beef up your reading comprehension.
Not as effective means 'not as effective'. Not effective means something quite different.
There's a sizable change when a vaccine goes from 95% effective (where one in twenty people with the vaccine can still get the disease) and 80% (where one in five people who get the vaccine can still get the disease). Both are better than nothing, but there's a clear change in effectiveness.
The longer that this virus runs unchecked, the more people will be killed by it. The more it is around the more mutations and changes will occur . . . and (as you mentioned) the vaccine is expected to be less effective on the mutated strains. About six months is a best case scenario roll-out for those of us in Canada, which is why I was hoping that most people have been vaccinated by that point.
You still don't get it. You say going from 95% to 80% efficacy rate is sizeable. I argue, it is not. And saying it is sizeable is a bit misleading. My whole pushback is that I feel your comments generally create a dismissive attitude towards the vaccine because of mutations. The virus is mutating ALL THE TIME! Our bodies are creating mutated cells all the time - it just a statistics thing. Our body usually rejects them. What happens when they don't? Cancer. I guarantee the virus will mutate a lot, but do those mutations mean something bad? Did you see my post about the measles? If the measles virus mutates in a way the makes the vaccine worthless then the virus itself stops functioning.
But let's entertain your idea of what it means to go from 95% to 80%. In this case, 95% to 80% is not like going from an A to a C+ on an exam, where outcomes in GPA could be sizable in your potential options. We need to have (depending on certain factors) 50-65% people who are immune to the virus (if the R0 value goes up then that # goes up). If the vaccines in real life perform at 95% efficacy we might need 55-70% vaccinated. If we have 80% effective vaccines we need 65%-80% vaccinated. Yes, a 10% difference, but it is totally manageable, and still a successful vaccine! If media creates an image of the vaccine being pointless ("ah, it seems it went from 95% clinical trial to 80% in real life, what a bummer, not as good as those scientist said, how can I trust them, etc., etc.") then we are screwed because what we need to be doing is saying if "efficacy goes down from 95% to 80% we need to double down on encouraging each other to take the vaccine". I'll be honest, I get the feels from you that you tend to think of the former rather than the latter. And further, if the vaccines are 80% effective, we would not end up with one in five catching the virus. The end result is MUCH better when reaching herd immunity (which was always really defined in terms of vaccines not purposefully spreading the disease). So going from 95% to 80% is more a matter on the % we need to vaccinated to save others, rather than a % increase on how many can still catch the disease. Further, because of many who have already caught it, they might now be immune. So that difference of 10% with the change in efficacy might actually go down if you include a population % who is already immune to it.
If the vaccine efficacy in the trials was in the 50% then it would not have been approved. So, I am not concerned about 80% or 95% as being sizeable. Take my home run analogy - we have to go down below 65% for it not to be a home run. Luckily, we have many vaccine options. The chances a mutation effects all of them? Less likely. Chances a mutation makes a vaccine efficacy go from 95% to 50%? At this point, it is not known, but all research points to large homogeneity of the virus sequence even with these documented mutations in some parts.
-
Then you need to beef up your reading comprehension.
I think the fundamental problem with vaccine skeptics is whatever level of math comprehension (high school calculus?) needed to understand the vaccine. When someone says 1/20 can catch the virus at 95% and 1/5 can still catch it 80% somehow completely ignores the underlying math behind vaccinations and what we do to get herd immunity. My previous post outlines some of math. Others do it better. Here is a great illustration that I can find on the spot
https://graphics.reuters.com/HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS/HERD%20IMMUNITY%20(EXPLAINER)/gjnvwayydvw/
It gives you a slider and everything so you can evaluate for yourself.
Sorry, @GuitarStv I always aced my math reasoning while reading comprehension always scored a little lower. Regardless, I think you know what I am getting at here.
-
Here are four attachments that run the model.
(Should be in order now as shown below)
R0: 2.5, 40% vaccinated 95% efficacy
R0: 2.5, 40% vaccinated 80% efficacy
R0: 2.5, 65% vaccinated 95% efficacy
R0: 2.5, 65% vaccinated 80% efficacy
As you can clearly see from the four results, the impact of the 15% vaccine efficacy is really nothing at 65% vaccinated. Go below herd immunity and that matters way more than the efficacy of the vaccine.
Edit: and just to clarify. The 80% vs 95% efficacy at 40% vaccinated are both bad. They are levels that continue to perpetuate lock downs, etc. If we end up with 40% vaccinated with 80% efficacy I will concede that it will be significantly worse than 95% efficacy with the same amount. But at that point just look forward to 2021 being worse. The whole point of vaccine efficacy is not to just protect only those it is effective against, but to protect everyone else, too, especially those that the vaccines are not effective against, who can not take it due to medical conditions, etc. Clearly at 65% vaccinated with 80% effective more people are protected than actually got the vaccine. So those who decide not to get a vaccine, and we reach herd immunity, well, you can thank those who showed up when you did not.
-
Are you more comfortable with the potential long term side effects of COVID than the possible side effects of getting the vaccine?
At my particular age and situation, yes. Going no vaccine looks like it has the best risk profile. Been an interesting study looking at the risks, ages, trying to factor in everything when some of the biggest possible impacts we have the least data on. Ultimately I came out with about 70% cases pro and 30% against and I just happen to fall into one of the against slivers.
What? If you can spread it, you should get the vaccine. Plus, if you get the vaccine you can help others (see above). What 'study' are you talking about that claims you are in a sliver that makes sense not to get the vaccine?
-
Then you need to beef up your reading comprehension.
Not as effective means 'not as effective'. Not effective means something quite different.
There's a sizable change when a vaccine goes from 95% effective (where one in twenty people with the vaccine can still get the disease) and 80% (where one in five people who get the vaccine can still get the disease). Both are better than nothing, but there's a clear change in effectiveness.
The longer that this virus runs unchecked, the more people will be killed by it. The more it is around the more mutations and changes will occur . . . and (as you mentioned) the vaccine is expected to be less effective on the mutated strains. About six months is a best case scenario roll-out for those of us in Canada, which is why I was hoping that most people have been vaccinated by that point.
You still don't get it.
I'd argue that you still don't get it.
You started out this conversation by completely mischaracterizing what I wrote out of some apparent need to tilt at windmills. I'd appreciate it if you would stop doing this.
You say going from 95% to 80% efficacy rate is sizeable. I argue, it is not. And saying it is sizeable is a bit misleading.
Given a choice between a vaccine that works at 95% efficacy and one that works at 80, I'd prefer to take the 95% one. It would be stupid not to. This is because there's a sizable difference between the two.
My whole pushback is that I feel your comments generally create a dismissive attitude towards the vaccine because of mutations.
I've got no issue with pushback, and indeed encourage the discussion of ideas. Please, push away. I take issue with the mischaracterization of what is being said in a conversation. That's dishonest, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop doing it. Especially as I think we see eye to eye on most of this.
The virus is mutating ALL THE TIME! Our bodies are creating mutated cells all the time - it just a statistics thing. Our body usually rejects them. What happens when they don't? Cancer. I guarantee the virus will mutate a lot, but do those mutations mean something bad? Did you see my post about the measles? If the measles virus mutates in a way the makes the vaccine worthless then the virus itself stops functioning.
Mutation is just change. It's a genetic roll of the dice. The coronavirus can mutate into something less deadly to people. It can mutate into something more deadly to people. It can mutate in a way that changes how it's transmitted. It can mutate into something that isn't stopped by the current vaccines at all. It can mutate and be more easily stopped by the current vaccines available. Anyone with grade 9 biology under their belt should have a pretty good understanding of this process.
Mutation is a potential risk to vaccine efficiency. You know this. You mentioned yourself that one of the more widely spread covid-19 vaccine mutations is also more resistant to the vaccine. The more that the virus copies itself, the more it will mutate due to copying errors (we're actually lucky that the covid-19 virus is pretty good at copying itself so doesn't produce as many mutations as might otherwise be seen). That's why I indicated my hope that we vaccinate people quickly - it reduces this risk.
I don't understand how this is controversial to you.
But let's entertain your idea of what it means to go from 95% to 80%. In this case, 95% to 80% is not like going from an A to a C+ on an exam, where outcomes in GPA could be sizable in your potential options. We need to have (depending on certain factors) 50-65% people who are immune to the virus (if the R0 value goes up then that # goes up). If the vaccines in real life perform at 95% efficacy we might need 55-70% vaccinated. If we have 80% effective vaccines we need 65%-80% vaccinated. Yes, a 10% difference, but it is totally manageable, and still a successful vaccine! If media creates an image of the vaccine being pointless ("ah, it seems it went from 95% clinical trial to 80% in real life, what a bummer, not as good as those scientist said, how can I trust them, etc., etc.") then we are screwed because what we need to be doing is saying if "efficacy goes down from 95% to 80% we need to double down on encouraging each other to take the vaccine". I'll be honest, I get the feels from you that you tend to think of the former rather than the latter.
It's very difficult for me to understand how my saying that:
- even at 80% a vaccine is certainly better than nothing
- I'd like to see as many people as possible vaccinated as soon as is logistically possible
. . . and having this read by you as my claiming that vaccination is pointless. Please, work on reading comprehension.
And further, if the vaccines are 80% effective, we would not end up with one in five catching the virus.
No, but again . . . that's not what I said, is it? Please stop building these straw men.
It means that one in five people who are fully vaccinated and then exposed to the virus will likely catch it. When this vaccine starts rolling out to the general population people who get vaccinated are going to start to feel safe. TOO SAFE. This will be at least in part because of folks like you who are glossing over important details. People being people, they're going to stop doing things like social distancing and wearing masks that help to halt transmission when they're feeling TOO SAFE.
If one in five who have the vaccine can still get the virus and transmit it during the period where the vaccine is being given out (and we have nothing close to herd immunity), I'd argue that that's a legitimate problem.
If the vaccine efficacy in the trials was in the 50% then it would not have been approved. So, I am not concerned about 80% or 95% as being sizeable.
Are you concerned at all about getting coronavirus? Because if you are, then this comment makes no sense. You personally, are much less safe taking a vaccine that offers only 80% immunity than one that offers 95%. Absolutely, herd immunity in the long run will help with things . . . but we aren't anywhere near it and there will be a very rocky period before we reach that mark.
-
And just to add my 2 cents worth, anyone who is eligible to be vaccinated should get it. Because even if everyone who could get it got it, not everyone would be vaccinated. Children, pregnant and breast-feeding women, people with health issues that make the vaccine unwise, will still be in the population and will be vulnerable. Getting vaccinated doesn't just protect the person getting vaccinated, it slows transmission down enough that we actually eventually start to see herd immunity.
-
If we end up with 40% vaccinated with 80% efficacy I will concede that it will be significantly worse than 95% efficacy with the same amount.
By my math, it's very likely that we will end up with 40% vaccinated before we end up with 65% vaccinated. The behavior of people during this period will depend to a large degree on their understanding that the vaccine isn't a guarantee of safety (especially if it's significantly reduced effectiveness - say 80% or even lower), and that they need to maintain precautions until a huge portion of the population has been vaccinated too.
I'm glad that (eventually) you took a breath and stopped pretending that there's no difference between an 80% and 95% effective vaccine though.
-
And just to add my 2 cents worth, anyone who is eligible to be vaccinated should get it. Because even if everyone who could get it got it, not everyone would be vaccinated. Children, pregnant and breast-feeding women, people with health issues that make the vaccine unwise, will still be in the population and will be vulnerable. Getting vaccinated doesn't just protect the person getting vaccinated, it slows transmission down enough that we actually eventually start to see herd immunity.
Well said. My thoughts exactly.
-
If we end up with 40% vaccinated with 80% efficacy I will concede that it will be significantly worse than 95% efficacy with the same amount.
By my math, it's very likely that we will end up with 40% vaccinated before we end up with 65% vaccinated. The behavior of people during this period will depend to a large degree on their understanding that the vaccine isn't a guarantee of safety (especially if it's significantly reduced effectiveness - say 80% or even lower), and that they need to maintain precautions until a huge portion of the population has been vaccinated too.
I'm glad that (eventually) you took a breath and stopped pretending that there's no difference between an 80% and 95% effective vaccine though.
Haha, I am not being dishonest. I am trying to educate. You may be a lost cause at this point because you will just dig your heals in. You don't get the nuance. The purpose of vaccines is not entirely to create a badge or shield against any one person. What @RetiredAt63 said is spot on, there are chunk of people who are not able to get the vaccine. Those people are still vulnerable. Do you just walk in post-vaccination and act like they don't matter, don't wear a mask, don't isolate? To me, when I get the vaccine, if I had a choice, I would have no issue choosing the 80% one - in fact out of altruism I would take the 80% to leave one more 95% one for the uneducated who think that is important. Because to me, it is more about getting more people vaccinated than the choice between 95% AND 80%. Would you make the same choice? Of course not, because you said right here:
Given a choice between a vaccine that works at 95% efficacy and one that works at 80, I'd prefer to take the 95% one. It would be stupid not to. This is because there's a sizable difference between the two.
Am I doing that right? Reading your words correctly here? This is the part I am frustrated with you about and one that this statement proves my point all along. I would say the preference for general population should be to leave the 95% for the front line health care workers and take the 80% effective one, if there was a choice.
The goal is herd immunity, anything less is unacceptable
I'm glad that (eventually) you took a breath and stopped pretending that there's no difference between an 80% and 95% effective vaccine though.
After reaching the effects of herd immunity (after new infections subside), there is no difference. Does that make sense to you? The % vaccinated changes, but your protection against the virus doesn't change much because you are more impacted by the presence of herd immunity than personal protection of a vaccine.
You personally, are much less safe taking a vaccine that offers only 80% immunity than one that offers 95%. Absolutely, herd immunity in the long run will help with things . . . but we aren't anywhere near it and there will be a very rocky period before we reach that mark.
Herd immunity should always be what you think the most important goal of a vaccine is than think it is for your own personal protection. We start with those who also need whatever protection they can get (health care workers) and move on to others. And actually once we reach a level of herd immunity there will still be a significant amount of infections afterwards because it is endemic. Once it peters out in areas, then it will hopefully stay out without a new wave.
-
@NaN are you saying that it is more important to get lots of people vaccinated than it is to use the most effective vaccine?
-
@scottish , yes.
Consider this hypothetical question, which scenario would you prefer: 80% of the population is given an 80% effective vaccine or 40% of the population is given the 98% effective vaccine? How would you choose if you were guaranteed the 98% effective vaccine vs being guaranteed to not get the 80% effective vaccine?
This could be a real choice for some countries who have to purchase the vaccines, or choose to distribute it. AstraZeneca has some of these issues now, but their vaccine does not have to be stored at the really cold temperatures.
Further, given you are the one making the choice, with the guarantee you would get the 98% vaccine (because you are wealthy, of power, etc.) would you still choose the better scenario, the 80/80? How does this choice change if you know there is a good chance only 40% of your population would take the vaccine? Do you hold out that maybe you can convince people to take the 80% or do you go with the 98%?
-
@scottish , I want to add that there are conditions when the efficacy goes too low. From the Reuters model, there does not seem to be much difference with 90% of the population vaccinated with a 40% effective vaccine than with 40% of the population vaccinated with a 90% effective vaccine. If the vaccine effectiveness goes down that low then they would likely stop distributing it. If I recall the vaccines would have not even been considered for EUA if they were below 50% effective.
-
Haha, I am not being dishonest.
Yes, you are. Very much so.
You started out with:
Given the multiple mutations we're now seeing all over the world, vaccination for single strain may not be as effective as we once hoped anyway.
This is factually untrue
(Nothing in the quoted statement was factually untrue.)
Then you pivoted and argued:
It is still correct at this point that it is factually untrue that the vaccine is ineffective against the mutations.
(Nobody had made the claim that the vaccine was ineffective against the mutations.)
Then you repeated the straw man when it was pointed out to you:
The way I read your post I bolded was, paraphrasing so you can understand how it comes across to me: "With SARS-CoV-2 mutations these vaccines are not going to be effective anymore as we hoped". This is factually untrue.
Strangely, that wasn't enough though . . . you misread this comment:
Hopefully we get enough vaccine out quickly enough to limit transmission (and thus the opportunity for continued mutation) over the next six months or so.
and then made up another straw man to argue against in the same post:
Even your last post, saying stuff like "over the next six months" implies you think the vaccine won't be working six months from now with all these mutations and different strains.
(Nobody argued that the vaccine wouldn't be working in six months.)
So, then you tripled down - this time attempting to redefine the English language to suit your straw man:
Your words say it may not be effective anymore--and implicit in "effective" is "at all". That's not the same thing. Not effective vs. not *as* effective are different things, and quite clearly so.
They are different. But in today's conversation bringing up 'as effective' without quantification, to me, essentially means saying not effective.
(Nobody cares what your personal definition of language is when it differs from common usage purely to accommodate a straw man.)
Eventually you seem to have given up on that line of 'reasoning', but then jump into this confusing argument:
You say going from 95% to 80% efficacy rate is sizeable. I argue, it is not.
. . . and follow it up with some bizarrely inconsistent internal logic:
I would say the preference for general population should be to leave the 95% for the front line health care workers and take the 80% effective one, if there was a choice.
If there's no sizable difference between the two . . . why are you recommending that they be treated differently by everyone?
Of course, a few sentences later you argue:
To me, when I get the vaccine, if I had a choice, I would have no issue choosing the 80% one - in fact out of altruism I would take the 80% to leave one more 95% one for the uneducated who think that is important.
Wait . . . what? So you think that front line health care workers are uneducated and thus need the higher effectiveness vaccine? Or are you uneducated and think it's important for front line workers to get it? Or you think there's no sizable difference, but it's really important for front line workers to get the better vaccine for . . . reasons? When the foundational argument is denying reality it will often run into little internal consistency problems like this.
I am trying to educate. You may be a lost cause at this point because you will just dig your heals in. You don't get the nuance.
I don't think my 'heals' are dug in at all. The weird thing is, I'm in agreement with much of what you say . . . just don't like the straw men and outright fabrications you've been using to say it. If you're interested in educating, don't spout obvious lies and falsehoods in your rhetoric.
The purpose of vaccines is not entirely to create a badge or shield against any one person.
Agreed. The 'badge or shield against any one person' is part of the reason to vaccinate, not the whole reason.
What @RetiredAt63 said is spot on, there are chunk of people who are not able to get the vaccine. Those people are still vulnerable.
Agreed again. But this is why it's very important not to mislead about efficacy of a vaccine as you have been doing. If a vaccine is 80% effective, that means that it fails one out of five times. As I pointed out before (and as you ignored) this might not mean much of anything when everyone has been vaccinated and herd immunity exists . . . but it's very important BEFORE that state has been achieved. People are naturally going to relax their safety measures (distancing and masking) once they think they're safe. They will start depending on that vaccine instead of sensible precautions . . . and when a vaccine fails to protect 1 in 5 times, that is going to cause a serious exposure problem for those vulnerable folks who can't be vaccinated.
Do you just walk in post-vaccination and act like they don't matter, don't wear a mask, don't isolate?
Me personally? No. If a vaccine can fail 1 in 5 times, there's obviously still plenty of reason to keep wearing a mask just on a personal protection front . . . at least until it has been very widely distributed and the benefits of herd immunity help my odds. But I'd be willing to bet that there's a sizable chunk of the population who will immediately stop all other precautions after vaccination.
Because to me, it is more about getting more people vaccinated than the choice between 95% AND 80%. Would you make the same choice? Of course not, because you said right here:
Given a choice between a vaccine that works at 95% efficacy and one that works at 80, I'd prefer to take the 95% one. It would be stupid not to. This is because there's a sizable difference between the two.
Am I doing that right? Reading your words correctly here? This is the part I am frustrated with you about and one that this statement proves my point all along.
No, you're absolutely not reading my words correctly here. You took a statement that I made (a 95% vaccine is more effective than an 80% one) and now are pretending that I'm arguing that fewer people should be vaccinated for some reason. That's yet another ridiculous straw man that I have not only failed to argue, but that I don't believe. Stop it.
The goal is herd immunity, anything less is unacceptable
Well, duh? As far as I can tell, 100% of people in this thread are for herd immunity. (Please, if you can find a single post arguing against it let me know.)
I'm glad that (eventually) you took a breath and stopped pretending that there's no difference between an 80% and 95% effective vaccine though.
After reaching the effects of herd immunity (after new infections subside), there is no difference. Does that make sense to you? The % vaccinated changes, but your protection against the virus doesn't change much because you are more impacted by the presence of herd immunity than personal protection of a vaccine.
Yep. Makes perfect sense. It's also different than the half-truths and straw men that you were previously arguing in the thread. Maybe lead with it next time.
Now, does it make sense to you that the effectiveness of a vaccine is much more personally important before herd immunity is achieved? Because until we get to the herd immunity stage everyone is going to be told to wear masks and distance . . . but adherence is likely to be pretty shit.
-
"Potential" and "possible." I'm mid 30s and am quite healthy. I don't see this as necessary, the virus seems to affect old, sick, or immunocompromised people.
Yes. And young, sporty, healthy ones, too. Or for that matter children. Just less often.
As far as I know the vaccines are only addressing the severity of sickness, not transmission.
Please inform yourself what a vaccine is in contrast to a symptom-relieving medication.
Even if I get the vaccine, the transmission to at risk people is still a possibility.
Yes. The vaccine may not work for you. But the risk is a lot less, not to mention the infection chain breaking effect.
Being young, I'm not at risk.
Wrong again. It does not get right if you repeat it 10 times.
Generally, about the "I am young and healthy so it does not affect me":
Tell that to the olympic winner who only had a very mild case (not even really symptoms) and is still struggling to get back to former performance. In his words "I first thought they had bound the girdle (with the tech) wrong and told them to get it off me. I felt like I was suffocating just running at a speed I would have thought very slow a few weeks ago."
Regarding "vaccines" vs. "symptom relieving medicine":
https://abc7news.com/covid-vaccine-masks-mask-wearing-pfizer/9139874/
Here's what the studies don't yet show. They haven't looked at whether the vaccine prevents someone from carrying COVID-19 and spreading it to others. It's possible that someone could get the vaccine but could still be an asymptomatic carrier. They may not show symptoms, but they have the virus in their nasal passageway so that if they're speaking, breathing, sneezing and so on, they can still transmit it to others.
This is the main reason why we can't stop wearing masks right after we get the vaccine. The vaccine will protect you from getting ill and then ending up hospitalized. But it's possible that you could still carry the virus and be contagious to others. So those who get the vaccine should still be wearing masks and practicing physical distancing.
Regarding the olympic athlete and congressman elect-are these cases statistically meaningful? Or are these outliers? I find it funny that the argument made to antivaxxers is based off of numbers and statistics, yet when it's convenient here we are with the individual cases that are rare. I'm not an antivaxxer by the way.
Regarding the young and healthy get sick too-yes, very few complications and deaths tho. California had no deaths under the age of 18 from covid until July 31, and the person had underlying conditions.
-
@scottish , yes.
Consider this hypothetical question, which scenario would you prefer: 80% of the population is given an 80% effective vaccine or 40% of the population is given the 98% effective vaccine? How would you choose if you were guaranteed the 98% effective vaccine vs being guaranteed to not get the 80% effective vaccine?
This could be a real choice for some countries who have to purchase the vaccines, or choose to distribute it. AstraZeneca has some of these issues now, but their vaccine does not have to be stored at the really cold temperatures.
Further, given you are the one making the choice, with the guarantee you would get the 98% vaccine (because you are wealthy, of power, etc.) would you still choose the better scenario, the 80/80? How does this choice change if you know there is a good chance only 40% of your population would take the vaccine? Do you hold out that maybe you can convince people to take the 80% or do you go with the 98%?
Sure, I was just trying to understand your post. There's likely to be a crossover point where vaccine efficacy is too low and it becomes more important to get a better vaccine than to vaccinate more people, but it's not 80%. You can probably assess my opinions of vaccines from my signature line! :-)
-
@GuitarStv Let's just define what sizeable is, since I think this is the only thing we fundamentally disagree on.
Example: assume for this case only that we need 70% immunity to reach herd immunity. Assume 20% are already immune. If we stack things up:
Having a 80% effective vaccine with 20% vaccination rate: -32% reduction in cases/deaths compared to no vaccines
Improvement to a 95% effective vaccine with 20% vaccination rate: -6% reduction in cases/deaths compared to no vaccines
The "rest of the way" by achieving necessary immunity rate of 70%: -68% or -62% reduction in deaths compared to no vaccines.
So my whole point is the 'sizeable' effect is 1) having a vaccine at all followed by 2) achieving herd immunity vaccination rates and those should be focused on first. The difference in the vaccine efficacies of 95% and 80% are a far third place at 6%.
What is the two most important thing to focus on? Having a vaccine, and then reaching herd immunity. So why focus on vaccine efficacy in the ranges we are talking about as if it is a bigger effect?
In terms of your accused consistency problem on my definition of sizeable. I would volunteer to take an 80% effective vaccine over 95% if a) it meant a frontline worker can have more protection or b) it meant someone who would only get a vaccine if it was the 95% one. This is because I value every life and in either case it means someone is more protected in either case. If that means even one less life is lost, or one less long COVID patient, due to me giving up a more effective vaccine to someone else it would be worth it.
So what do you want me to say? That a 80% effective vaccine results in at least one more death than a 95% effective vaccine BEFORE herd immunity is reach? Oh, you got me. Consistency problem properly exposed. Yeah, it sucks. This whole situation sucks. Plenty of people are dying. Even one more person dying due to COVID is tragic. However, the sizeable effects are having a vaccine at all, and then reach herd immunity. Whether the vaccine is 80% or 95% is a distance third in my list. It is so exhausting even arguing this point.
No one has even proved the vaccine is less effective with the ongoing mutations. Yes, you said it "may be not as effective". The earth may have a giant asteroid that hits it in 15 years. I mean, it is possible. Giant, extinction sized asteroids have hit the earth before. So if you want me to say you are right that "an asteroid may hit the earth" is different than saying "an asteroid will hit the earth". But on a thread with "vaccine skeptics" in the title I just think raising the concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine in the way you did has a better chance of convincing someone to not take a vaccine than to take one. Just as saying "an asteroid may hit the earth" might have the effect of convincing someone to build their fall out shelter.
I don't think I am misleading people on the efficacy of the vaccine - a little confused why you would think that. I am not downplaying a 80% effective vaccine by saying one can run wild without a mask and no social distancing. I never said that. The only time one should think things are truly safe is when we have reach vaccination levels for herd immunity AND the positive case count has all but disappeared (so a few 100 cases per day, or even zero in your local municipality).
-
@GuitarStv Let's just define what sizeable is, since I think this is the only thing we fundamentally disagree on.
Example: assume for this case only that we need 70% immunity to reach herd immunity. Assume 20% are already immune. If we stack things up:
Having a 80% effective vaccine with 20% vaccination rate: -32% reduction in cases/deaths compared to no vaccines
Improvement to a 95% effective vaccine with 20% vaccination rate: -6% reduction in cases/deaths compared to no vaccines
The "rest of the way" by achieving necessary immunity rate of 70%: -68% or -62% reduction in deaths compared to no vaccines.
So my whole point is the 'sizeable' effect is 1) having a vaccine at all followed by 2) achieving herd immunity vaccination rates and those should be focused on first. The difference in the vaccine efficacies of 95% and 80% are a far third place at 6%.
What is the two most important thing to focus on? Having a vaccine, and then reaching herd immunity. So why focus on vaccine efficacy in the ranges we are talking about as if it is a bigger effect?
In terms of your accused consistency problem on my definition of sizeable. I would volunteer to take an 80% effective vaccine over 95% if a) it meant a frontline worker can have more protection or b) it meant someone who would only get a vaccine if it was the 95% one. This is because I value every life and in either case it means someone is more protected in either case. If that means even one less life is lost, or one less long COVID patient, due to me giving up a more effective vaccine to someone else it would be worth it.
So what do you want me to say? That a 80% effective vaccine results in at least one more death than a 95% effective vaccine BEFORE herd immunity is reach? Oh, you got me. Consistency problem properly exposed. Yeah, it sucks. This whole situation sucks. Plenty of people are dying. Even one more person dying due to COVID is tragic. However, the sizeable effects are having a vaccine at all, and then reach herd immunity. Whether the vaccine is 80% or 95% is a distance third in my list. It is so exhausting even arguing this point.
No one has even proved the vaccine is less effective with the ongoing mutations. Yes, you said it "may be not as effective". The earth may have a giant asteroid that hits it in 15 years. I mean, it is possible. Giant, extinction sized asteroids have hit the earth before. So if you want me to say you are right that "an asteroid may hit the earth" is different than saying "an asteroid will hit the earth". But on a thread with "vaccine skeptics" in the title I just think raising the concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine in the way you did has a better chance of convincing someone to not take a vaccine than to take one. Just as saying "an asteroid may hit the earth" might have the effect of convincing someone to build their fall out shelter.
I don't think I am misleading people on the efficacy of the vaccine - a little confused why you would think that. I am not downplaying a 80% effective vaccine by saying one can run wild without a mask and no social distancing. I never said that. The only time one should think things are truly safe is when we have reach vaccination levels for herd immunity AND the positive case count has all but disappeared (so a few 100 cases per day, or even zero in your local municipality).
NaN, my main issue in this discussion has been your regular use of out of context quotes, straw men, and misleading statements to argue your point. Not most of the content of what you're saying.
Arguing there's no sizable difference between an 80% and a 95% vaccine is possibly justifiable when large swathes of the population is vaccinated and herd immunity prevents spread of the disease. It's quite misleading to argue this when we're nowhere near that point though. But this whole discussion is a bit of a red herring anyway. The 80-95% argument originated in your court as a (factually incorrect) way of arguing that there's no risk a mutation could render the covid vaccine less effective. There is, and it already has. It could become worse in the future. That's a part of the reason vaccinating everyone soon is important.
As just mentioned, I understand the importance of vaccinating people and doing so quickly. I disagree strongly that the best way to do this is by lying and misleading people. Look at the damage that Fauci did to mask wearing in the US by lying that they weren't effective at the start of the pandemic. He's on record saying that he lied about this because he was worried about PPE supplies for medical workers being eaten up by citizens. Pure intentions and best reasons, but with serious negative consequence that are still being felt. (And I like Fauci . . . he has generally done a very good job in difficult circumstances. The lying is probably his biggest - maybe only significant- misstep.)
-
Arguing there's no sizable difference between an 80% and a 95% vaccine is possibly justifiable when large swathes of the population is vaccinated and herd immunity prevents spread of the disease. It's quite misleading to argue this when we're nowhere near that point though. But this whole discussion is a bit of a red herring anyway. The 80-95% argument originated in your court as a (factually incorrect) way of arguing that there's no risk a mutation could render the covid vaccine less effective. There is, and it already has. It could become worse in the future. That's a part of the reason vaccinating everyone soon is important.
Did you not just read what you quoted? Will there be more deaths with a reduced effectiveness vaccine, yes, but that difference is 1/5 of just having a vaccine and and 1/16 if reached herd immunity tomorrow.
It is not misleading to argue that there is no sizeable difference between 80% and 95% when compared to the large amounts of good any 70%+ efficacy vaccine will do and the even larger amount herd immunity would do once it is reached. I think what you are accusing me of is that I am cheerleading the person who has the 80% effective vaccine to run through a hoard of COVID positive patients as if they are Zombies in Walking Dead and saying with a villain voice: "There is no big deal, you got a vaccine, don't worry about the mutations, they do nothing, you're good! Run through, my friend, with no concern, live life freely! [evil laugh as they take off in to the wild]". That's not what I am doing, if that wasn't obvious. And while you are accusing me of red herrings, straw men, etc, you should reevaluate yourself how you are comprehending what I am really saying.
Let me help: what I am trying to say is
1) mutations have not been determined to reduce effective of any of the COVID vaccines, yet (if you have proof please post), but it is possible but never should be a reason not to get a vaccine,
2) if there was a reduced effectiveness there is no difference when we reach the ultimate goal of herd immunity,
3) even if you have a vaccine act like you don't have it, and
4) that everyone should realize even if you have the 80% effective vaccine, yes you have a 1/5 chance of being susceptible (i.e. it didn't work on you), but if 70% of your neighbors have immunity you are still protected by herd immunity effects.
As just mentioned, I understand the importance of vaccinating people and doing so quickly. I disagree strongly that the best way to do this is by lying and misleading people. Look at the damage that Fauci did to mask wearing in the US by lying that they weren't effective at the start of the pandemic. He's on record saying that he lied about this because he was worried about PPE supplies for medical workers being eaten up by citizens. Pure intentions and best reasons, but with serious negative consequence that are still being felt. (And I like Fauci . . . he has generally done a very good job in difficult circumstances. The lying is probably his biggest - maybe only significant- misstep.)
Do you think someone is lying to you about the vaccine? Do you think anyone here is intentionally trying to mislead you here? If so, that's some conspiracy level bonkers stuff.
-
Arguing there's no sizable difference between an 80% and a 95% vaccine is possibly justifiable when large swathes of the population is vaccinated and herd immunity prevents spread of the disease. It's quite misleading to argue this when we're nowhere near that point though. But this whole discussion is a bit of a red herring anyway. The 80-95% argument originated in your court as a (factually incorrect) way of arguing that there's no risk a mutation could render the covid vaccine less effective. There is, and it already has. It could become worse in the future. That's a part of the reason vaccinating everyone soon is important.
Did you not just read what you quoted? Will there be more deaths with a reduced effectiveness vaccine, yes, but that difference is 1/5 of just having a vaccine and and 1/16 if reached herd immunity tomorrow.
It is not misleading to argue that there is no sizeable difference between 80% and 95% when compared to the large amounts of good any 70%+ efficacy vaccine will do and the even larger amount herd immunity would do once it is reached. I think what you are accusing me of is that I am cheerleading the person who has the 80% effective vaccine to run through a hoard of COVID positive patients as if they are Zombies in Walking Dead and saying with a villain voice: "There is no big deal, you got a vaccine, don't worry about the mutations, they do nothing, you're good! Run through, my friend, with no concern, live life freely! [evil laugh as they take off in to the wild]". That's not what I am doing, if that wasn't obvious. And while you are accusing me of red herrings, straw men, etc, you should reevaluate yourself how you are comprehending what I am really saying.
Let me help: what I am trying to say is
1) mutations have not been determined to reduce effective of any of the COVID vaccines, yet (if you have proof please post), but it is possible but never should be a reason not to get a vaccine,
2) if there was a reduced effectiveness there is no difference when we reach the ultimate goal of herd immunity,
3) even if you have a vaccine act like you don't have it, and
4) that everyone should realize even if you have the 80% effective vaccine, yes you have a 1/5 chance of being susceptible (i.e. it didn't work on you), but if 70% of your neighbors have immunity you are still protected by herd immunity effects.
As just mentioned, I understand the importance of vaccinating people and doing so quickly. I disagree strongly that the best way to do this is by lying and misleading people. Look at the damage that Fauci did to mask wearing in the US by lying that they weren't effective at the start of the pandemic. He's on record saying that he lied about this because he was worried about PPE supplies for medical workers being eaten up by citizens. Pure intentions and best reasons, but with serious negative consequence that are still being felt. (And I like Fauci . . . he has generally done a very good job in difficult circumstances. The lying is probably his biggest - maybe only significant- misstep.)
Do you think someone is lying to you about the vaccine? Do you think anyone here is intentionally trying to mislead you here? If so, that's some conspiracy level bonkers stuff.
Not sure why a conspiracy needs to be involved. I mentioned Fauci's well documented history only to demonstrate the unexpected damage that well intentioned falsehoods can cause and explain why I'm against making things up . . . even for the best of reasons, and even by a person whom (I assume) we both generally respect.
You've stopped misquoting me to fight staw men which was the main concern I had. At this point I don't really see a reason to continue as we're largely squabbling about semantic interpretation and seem to agree on all the major points. I believe that some of the arguments you're making are misleading, and you appear to believe the same about me. Not sure there's much point in continuing.
-
And just to add my 2 cents worth, anyone who is eligible to be vaccinated should get it. Because even if everyone who could get it got it, not everyone would be vaccinated. Children, pregnant and breast-feeding women, people with health issues that make the vaccine unwise, will still be in the population and will be vulnerable. Getting vaccinated doesn't just protect the person getting vaccinated, it slows transmission down enough that we actually eventually start to see herd immunity.
And yet a week later, I know of both pregnant and breastfeeding people in the US who have gotten it, despite there being no safety studies on it. I guess the UK's recommendations carried no weight here in the US. In the end, that's how all of these policies work... "even though we recommend you don't get it, we recommend you get it". I sincerely hope it works out for both of those women, and I shudder to think that they were essentially the first round of research.
-
Regarding the olympic athlete and congressman elect-are these cases statistically meaningful? Or are these outliers? I find it funny that the argument made to antivaxxers is based off of numbers and statistics, yet when it's convenient here we are with the individual cases that are rare. I'm not an antivaxxer by the way.
Well, it's falsification, right?
If you say the virus does not kill children, then having just one children die of the virus proves your sentence to be wrong.
In Germany, if I remember it right, 9 children under 14 died because of Covid. One thousand times more above 80 died from it.
It's still wrong to say that it does not kill children.
-
The cluster f* going on with the rollout is leading me against getting it again for now.
A group got antibody treatment instead of the vaccine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/31/covid-vaccine-west-virginia/
Maybe just getting one dose/half dose is enough. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/health/fda-coronavirus-vaccines-doses/index.html
Mixing vaccines.
Waiting in line all day then they run out.
The logistics of keeping track of who got the first dose and getting them the second on time. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/people-get-vaccinated-in-their-cars-on-grand-prairie-parking-lot/2516658/
-
The cluster f* going on with the rollout is leading me against getting it again for now.
A group got antibody treatment instead of the vaccine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/31/covid-vaccine-west-virginia/
Maybe just getting one dose/half dose is enough. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/health/fda-coronavirus-vaccines-doses/index.html
Mixing vaccines.
Waiting in line all day then they run out.
The logistics of keeping track of who got the first dose and getting them the second on time. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/people-get-vaccinated-in-their-cars-on-grand-prairie-parking-lot/2516658/
Substituting one thing for another without telling anyone regarding vaccines isa bad idea. If it turns out that there's a very rare long term problem with vaccine A, and a group of people think they got vaccine B but actually got A . . . this is a bad situation.
Giving people half a vaccine, or giving them part of one vaccine and part of another, skipping the tested and recommended second dose . . . these don't seem like very smart actions to take. We have no idea what the effectiveness of doing these things is. We have little to no testing in this area regarding potential reactions and interactions as well.
-
Mixing vaccines.
Who is mixing vaccines? Not the NHS (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55519042).
-
The cluster f* going on with the rollout is leading me against getting it again for now.
A group got antibody treatment instead of the vaccine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/31/covid-vaccine-west-virginia/
Maybe just getting one dose/half dose is enough. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/health/fda-coronavirus-vaccines-doses/index.html
Mixing vaccines.
Waiting in line all day then they run out.
The logistics of keeping track of who got the first dose and getting them the second on time. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/people-get-vaccinated-in-their-cars-on-grand-prairie-parking-lot/2516658/
One Florida county's approach was comical. First-come, first-served...for elderly people. It ended up like anyone could've guessed -- a line of elderly people camping overnight like it was a concert.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/30/us/florida-coronavirus-vaccine-line/index.html
-
Mixing vaccines.
Who is mixing vaccines? Not the NHS (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55519042).
That is very good news!
-
Who IS mixing? The manufacturers say don’t mix between vials.
-
Well I got an email last night with a 11-12 appt today so I decided to get it. I got there a little early and there was a line outside and it was cold & windy. It moved fairly quickly and took about 30 minutes to get inside then 15 to get the shot. They want you to stay for 15 minutes in case you have any reaction. So I was done in an hour.
I got the Moderna vaccine. I little tender around the injection site but that's it so far.
-
Who IS mixing? The manufacturers say don’t mix between vials.
The NYT reported the UK was but BMJ requested they correct it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55519042
I also read that some states were considering it but can't find anything now.
-
Ah. We’re definitely getting more than 10 doses out of many vials (Moderna) but we don’t mix if we only have a partial dose and we emphasize that the second dose needs to be Moderna too.