Who exactly are the COVID vaccine skeptics?

[GuitarStv]

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

[EvenSteven]

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

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.

[Metalcat]

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

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.

[Sibley]

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.

[LennStar]

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!

[BNgarden]

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

The article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/science-covid-19-manhattan-project/617262/

[use2betrix]

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.

[Raenia]

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.

[Villanelle]

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.

[jrhampt]

^^^ 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.

[partgypsy]

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.

[American GenX]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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/)

Bunch of ignorant fools!  Obviously they don't have an understanding of science, medicine, or the coronavirus.

[LennStar]

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.

[American GenX]

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/)

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.

[scottish]

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?!?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

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/)

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.

[Metalcat]

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.

[jeninco]

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.

[LennStar]

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.

[Padonak]

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?

[LennStar]

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.)

[rocketpj]

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.  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.

[American GenX]

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.

[scottish]

Wooot!    Keep us posted on what happens when you get your second injection in 3? weeks...    And whether you get infected or not!

[American GenX]

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.

[NaN]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

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.

[NaN]

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.

[NaN]

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

[American GenX]

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."

[NaN]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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.

[American GenX]

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.

[Johnez]

None of the above.

Not an antivaxxer, but this happened too fast. Not dependent on my political affiliation (conservative, but happy Trump lost).

[BNgarden]

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.

[NaN]

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. 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.

[NaN]

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 
  "The measles virus can not function with mutations in the surface proteins that it uses to enter cells"
• Myths about measles vaccines
  "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.

[NaN]

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

[Johnez]

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.

[HPstache]

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 :)

[Johnez]

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.

[Villanelle]

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. 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. 

[American GenX]

"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.

[NaN]

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. 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?

[OtherJen]

"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.

[NaN]

"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.

[scottish]

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?)

[OtherJen]

"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. There doesn’t seem to be a way to predict who will be affected by it. Not a risk I’m willing to take.