Who exactly are the COVID vaccine skeptics?

[Adventine]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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

[Adventine]

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.

[Cranky]

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

[John Galt incarnate!]

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."

[Cranky]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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.

[Cranky]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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!"

[Just Joe]

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.

[Nick_Miller]

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.

[trollwithamustache]

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.

[BiggerFishToFI]

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

[HPstache]

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

[sherr]

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.

[HPstache]

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

[GuitarStv]

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.

[sherr]

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?

[GuitarStv]

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.

[Cranky]

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.

[trollwithamustache]

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! 

[Kris]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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.

[PDXTabs]

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.

[Luke Warm]

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.

[LennStar]

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 ;)

[Cassie]

Between being older and having asthma I will be taking it. I know people that are taking a wait and see approach.

[RetiredAt63]

Lots of vaccines don't come close to 90% effectiveness.  I get the general ferling that the various vaccine companies are thrilled at 90%+.

[erutio]

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.

[Cranky]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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):
"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/)

"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
"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.

[scottish]

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?

[LennStar]

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.

[bluebelle]

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'.   

[sherr]

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.

[bluebelle]

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.....

[GuitarStv]

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.

[HPstache]

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"

[GuitarStv]

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

[Just Joe]

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.

[Jouer]

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.

[BNgarden]

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?

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/

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.”

[RetiredAt63]

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.

[scottish]

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.

[sherr]

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

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.

[Plina]

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.

[elaine amj]

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

[SpreadsheetMan]

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

[RetiredAt63]

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.

[Villanelle]

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.