Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December(pfizer.com)
pfizer.com
Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-submit-emergency-use-authorization
445 comments
Now we (average folks) only have to wait 6 months (minimum). So don't hold your breath. This is kinda good news though.
There’s plenty of fear montering going around so many people don’t actually want to be vaccinated. Your turn may come sooner than expected.
I have a friend who is very anxious about how quickly these vaccines were developed. What can I tell them to reassure them that it is safe?
Something that resonated with me... Which do you think is more likely to have a significant negative effect on your health? These vaccines or COVID?
We have plenty of reason to believe these vaccines will be effective with minimal adverse effects (including the relatively small study of 40k individuals).
Conversely, we have definitive proof that in the best case COVID can be asymptomatic and/or a nasty, but survivable, virus. At its worst, it kills you or leaves you with long-lasting health issues that we don't yet fully understand.
Personally, I'll take my chances with the vaccine. My biggest fear isn't adverse reactions, but rather lack of efficacy.
We have plenty of reason to believe these vaccines will be effective with minimal adverse effects (including the relatively small study of 40k individuals).
Conversely, we have definitive proof that in the best case COVID can be asymptomatic and/or a nasty, but survivable, virus. At its worst, it kills you or leaves you with long-lasting health issues that we don't yet fully understand.
Personally, I'll take my chances with the vaccine. My biggest fear isn't adverse reactions, but rather lack of efficacy.
This NYT article clicked with me: https://outline.com/bVnccw
If our best and brightest doctors are opting to get the vaccines for themselves, I feel safe doing the same - it's probably the most clear and obvious signal we're going to get.
If our best and brightest doctors are opting to get the vaccines for themselves, I feel safe doing the same - it's probably the most clear and obvious signal we're going to get.
This is a game of probability of which risk is greater: covid or vaccine? So, a doctor that has a great chance to get covid it's worth to use the vaccine even if it has risks. For me that I have low probability to get covid (I try to be very careful) it's not worth to have the vaccine risks.
But that's just it, we anecdotally know they're safe. There are tests we've run and the results are promising, but the true large scale inoculations haven't happened.
All things point to these as being safe, but until it's more widely dispersed I don't think you can assert it as having the same safety as most modern inoculations.
Cautious optimism isn't a bad thing, nor is hesitance to taking the vaccine. Its not really your place to convince them it is safe, that's for them to decide with the facts on hand. Provide them info on the tests, share whatever you have, but it's ok to not trust the speed at which these vaccines were made.
All things point to these as being safe, but until it's more widely dispersed I don't think you can assert it as having the same safety as most modern inoculations.
Cautious optimism isn't a bad thing, nor is hesitance to taking the vaccine. Its not really your place to convince them it is safe, that's for them to decide with the facts on hand. Provide them info on the tests, share whatever you have, but it's ok to not trust the speed at which these vaccines were made.
can you add emergency use to the title!
[deleted]
>> The company has developed specially designed, temperature-controlled shippers for the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate, which can maintain recommended storage conditions (-70°C ±10°C) up to 15 days. Each shipper contains a GPS-enabled thermal sensor to track the location and temperature of each vaccine shipment. Once thawed, the vaccine vial can be stored for up to 5 days at refrigerated (2 - 8oC) conditions.
I read somewhere they already have 20 million doses ready to shipped once they get the approval. Wonder what is the capacity of each of these specially designed shippers and how the logistics of the eventual vaccination are going to be handled?
But this is surely an interesting problem to solve and I look forward to how they tackle it.
I read somewhere they already have 20 million doses ready to shipped once they get the approval. Wonder what is the capacity of each of these specially designed shippers and how the logistics of the eventual vaccination are going to be handled?
But this is surely an interesting problem to solve and I look forward to how they tackle it.
I'm curious if anyone knows why Pfizer's mRNA vaccine still needs this while Moderna's mRNA vaccine does not?
Has Pfizer just not gone through the proper temperature testing or did they go through that testing and it showed that their vaccine needs to be stored so cold?
Has Pfizer just not gone through the proper temperature testing or did they go through that testing and it showed that their vaccine needs to be stored so cold?
The second option. Stability testing is done quite early with any drug candidate and is a requirement for FDA approval. There is zero chance that Pfizer didn't test their vaccine at higher temperatures.
Although Moderna's and Pfzier's vaccines are both mRNA technologies, they aren't identical in either the mRNA itself or the lipid nanoparticle used to deliver the mRNA. That's why they have different stability profiles.
Although Moderna's and Pfzier's vaccines are both mRNA technologies, they aren't identical in either the mRNA itself or the lipid nanoparticle used to deliver the mRNA. That's why they have different stability profiles.
Lipid nanoparticle used to envelope and deliver the mRNA. They’re using different makeups which affect the mRNA delivery and stabilization in the vaccine.
In the US, they already have pre-purchased millions of dosages that are ready to go within 24 hours of FDA approval.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/operation-warp-speed-covid-19-v...
It's quite remarkable in terms of logistics.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/operation-warp-speed-covid-19-v...
It's quite remarkable in terms of logistics.
Here are some larger on-market -80 class medical shippers: https://www.thermosafe.com/files/Product_Sheets/DurablesforH...
Guessing by eye, you can fit at least several hundred, up to low thousands of doses in each shipper. The inner volumes on these are pretty large, but a good chunk of it will be taken up by dry-ice.
Guessing by eye, you can fit at least several hundred, up to low thousands of doses in each shipper. The inner volumes on these are pretty large, but a good chunk of it will be taken up by dry-ice.
You don't have to guess, this is published information. They have trays of 1000 doses, and up to 5 trays fit in a shipping box with the dry ice.
Does this feel rushed to anyone? Why don’t they stagger the release? Why jump from initial trials involving thousands to widespread distribution involving millions?
Basically because the mechanisms this generation of vaccine consist of are much less complex than any before.
Historically, vaccines were huge biological black boxes with all kinds of biomachinery inside that weren't understood at all, that weren't even known. Vaccines were routinely developed, purely by clever trial and error search strategies long before any of their actual mechanisms were understood. In particular this meant that most of the molecular machinery included weren't even needed for the effect. You want a lipstick so you steal cars until you find one that contains a lipstick. Who knows what else you acquired.
This generation of vaccines is the opposite, they know exactly what molecules they want, where, for what reason. And it's basically one molecule. One molecule you'd be exposed to, in much larger dosage, anyways one day if the vaccines are unsuccessful (the virus is well past flash-in-the-pan now, it will become endemic unless perhaps vaccination also prevents spread and not only illness, which isn't clear at all). The only uncertainty was the question of whether the immune system will react to the sound protein if it comes without a virus attached and wether an immune system that was already acquainted with that molecule will actually work better against the actual virus, not worse (some viruses are even worse if the immune system thinks it already has a defense and focuses on that but the defense is only partial). Both are easily checked in trials if you don't skip them (we didn't). The black box full of surprises of historic vaccines, the trunk of the car that you stole to find lipstick, it's just not there.
Historically, vaccines were huge biological black boxes with all kinds of biomachinery inside that weren't understood at all, that weren't even known. Vaccines were routinely developed, purely by clever trial and error search strategies long before any of their actual mechanisms were understood. In particular this meant that most of the molecular machinery included weren't even needed for the effect. You want a lipstick so you steal cars until you find one that contains a lipstick. Who knows what else you acquired.
This generation of vaccines is the opposite, they know exactly what molecules they want, where, for what reason. And it's basically one molecule. One molecule you'd be exposed to, in much larger dosage, anyways one day if the vaccines are unsuccessful (the virus is well past flash-in-the-pan now, it will become endemic unless perhaps vaccination also prevents spread and not only illness, which isn't clear at all). The only uncertainty was the question of whether the immune system will react to the sound protein if it comes without a virus attached and wether an immune system that was already acquainted with that molecule will actually work better against the actual virus, not worse (some viruses are even worse if the immune system thinks it already has a defense and focuses on that but the defense is only partial). Both are easily checked in trials if you don't skip them (we didn't). The black box full of surprises of historic vaccines, the trunk of the car that you stole to find lipstick, it's just not there.
Thank you! Did not know that this vaccine was simpler than past vaccines.
I wouldn't call it "simpler", exactly. Yes, it's just getting the immune system to react to a single protein (albeit by injecting genetic material rather than the protein itself) rather than sending in a whole modified virus, but it's based on a fancy new vaccine technology that hadn't been successfully developed and deployed yet, I believe. Anyway, this[0] is a great rundown of the kinds of vaccines out there and in development. Both this one (Pfizer/BioNTech) and the other one that released data recently (Moderna) are mRNA vaccines.
[0] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/15/co...
[0] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/15/co...
For me the testing process feels painful and slow. I believe the best way to know the illness is through controlled infection of volunteers. I would have volunteered myself.
I have been around people risking their lives in B.A.S.E jumps, scuba diving or aircraft acrobatics.
If people can risk their own lives for the adrenaline rush, I don't know why they can't risk their lives for the improvement of all humanity.
I have been around people risking their lives in B.A.S.E jumps, scuba diving or aircraft acrobatics.
If people can risk their own lives for the adrenaline rush, I don't know why they can't risk their lives for the improvement of all humanity.
> I have been around people risking their lives in B.A.S.E jumps, scuba diving or aircraft acrobatics.
Those are more risks of a quick end doing something you love, which is much more attractive than a risk of ruining a long life ever after, which being on the wrong end of a failed medical experiment very much is. If we somehow had cultural conventions and processes about controlled opt-out from life then this might be different, but we don't. I don't know how those cultural mechanisms would look and I don't know if they would even be possible without doing more harm than good, but I do know that we clearly don't have them.
But the real issue with challenge trials is that they just don't tell you that much as the trial group would undoubtedly be extremely biased. Basic validation can be done in a dish, in programmerese that's the suite of unit tests, and it can be done well enough to skip from safety tests (that don't involve the virus) right to observed staged deployment. The main thing challenge tests would add is that they would be a big lure for reckless people who try to be faster by skimping on the initial dish tests that are the majority of development (the equivalent of skipping unit tests).
Those are more risks of a quick end doing something you love, which is much more attractive than a risk of ruining a long life ever after, which being on the wrong end of a failed medical experiment very much is. If we somehow had cultural conventions and processes about controlled opt-out from life then this might be different, but we don't. I don't know how those cultural mechanisms would look and I don't know if they would even be possible without doing more harm than good, but I do know that we clearly don't have them.
But the real issue with challenge trials is that they just don't tell you that much as the trial group would undoubtedly be extremely biased. Basic validation can be done in a dish, in programmerese that's the suite of unit tests, and it can be done well enough to skip from safety tests (that don't involve the virus) right to observed staged deployment. The main thing challenge tests would add is that they would be a big lure for reckless people who try to be faster by skimping on the initial dish tests that are the majority of development (the equivalent of skipping unit tests).
There are plenty of people who are willing to risk their own life for controlled infection trials.
The issue is finding professionals and professional institutions willing to risk the lives of others to administer those trials.
The issue is finding professionals and professional institutions willing to risk the lives of others to administer those trials.
A pandemic is a good time to do vaccine trials. They signed up 44,000 volunteers and got 170 cases unbelievably quickly. People were highly motivated to volunteer, making the enrollment faster, and the very high case rates in the US meant there for to their target very quickly.
Also, 170 cases is a _lot_ in terms of phase III studies.
Other than that, the vaccine is following basically the normal course. It won't get final approval until there is more time to monitor, but the EUA will be based upon saving lives now.
For more, see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4944327/
Also, 170 cases is a _lot_ in terms of phase III studies.
Other than that, the vaccine is following basically the normal course. It won't get final approval until there is more time to monitor, but the EUA will be based upon saving lives now.
For more, see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4944327/
Is your question whether the research and release of a vaccine nearly the entire world has been tirelessly either working on or waiting for "feels rushed"?
I mean, what did you expect?
I mean, what did you expect?
I don’t know what I expected. I just feel that the timeline is unprecedented.
Because there is an ongoing global pandemic killing people and economies.
Because delaying it would entail thousands of extra deaths.
My understanding is they got a huge boost from a sudden flood of funding for mRNA research and the partially done testing for vaccines for related diseases that went away with containment measures.
You can't rush Stage III of vaccine trials.
95% with a p of < .0001 is unheard of in Vaccines. This is an amazing feat for science.
95% with a p of < .0001 is unheard of in Vaccines. This is an amazing feat for science.
Sorry, but what does p stand for?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value
In this context it means that the probability of getting the result they got, in the assumption that vaccine does not work, is less than 1 in 10000.
In this context it means that the probability of getting the result they got, in the assumption that vaccine does not work, is less than 1 in 10000.
> 95% with a p of < .0001 is unheard of in Vaccines.
That can't possibly be true.
Not to diminish the accomplishment though.
That can't possibly be true.
Not to diminish the accomplishment though.
How is it not true?
Most are 85-90% but the jump from high 80s --> 95% is massive,
Most are 85-90% but the jump from high 80s --> 95% is massive,
Well a one second google search says chickenpox is 98% effective, so already that's not unheard of.
I would think extremely low p values are not just normative, but required for a vaccine to reach public acceptance. This vaccine is noteworthy for the speed at which it was developed, but its not the first really good vaccine.
edit: and because I'm getting a lot of downvotes for some reason, Anthrax, Measles, Rubella, and Polio also seem to have 90%+ effectiveness ratings.
edit edit: and as a corollary, with equivalent n sizes for the trials and higher effect sizes, the p value is by necessity smaller, not that it matters below very small thresholds
edit^3: high 80s to 95 isn't that noteworthy, and is likely within the margin of error of the clinical trials.
I would think extremely low p values are not just normative, but required for a vaccine to reach public acceptance. This vaccine is noteworthy for the speed at which it was developed, but its not the first really good vaccine.
edit: and because I'm getting a lot of downvotes for some reason, Anthrax, Measles, Rubella, and Polio also seem to have 90%+ effectiveness ratings.
edit edit: and as a corollary, with equivalent n sizes for the trials and higher effect sizes, the p value is by necessity smaller, not that it matters below very small thresholds
edit^3: high 80s to 95 isn't that noteworthy, and is likely within the margin of error of the clinical trials.
Add Tdap to the list. It is 95% effective against diphtheria and nearly 100% against tetanus.
The IPV polio vaccine is actually over 99% effective after three doses (the standard schedule in the US is four doses).
The IPV polio vaccine is actually over 99% effective after three doses (the standard schedule in the US is four doses).
> required for a vaccine to reach public acceptance.
This leads to frightening considerations. The reason FDA testing is so stringent is that trying to explain statistics along with a myriad of other fields, that are at this point likely too complex and exhaustive for any one human to fully comprehend even if they spent their entire lifetime learning, to the "public" for them to truly make an informed decision is a futile effort.
A vaccine is no doubt a great thing and much needed. Two things bother me very greatly about it:
1) A lot of testing was skipped. This will be injected into tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of people long before we even know the long term side effects. If by some very low chance this introduces an inheritable change, and if by an even lower chance that inheritable change leads to genetic collapse in 10-20 generations - just to be very clear, this is extremely unlikely - we have opened the window to humanity's end.
2) A far more realistic ethical concern is what happens to states (god forbid if the fed does it) who legally require this (unconstitutionally, of course, since most modern laws already are and nobody seems to have an issue with this) like New York who've already had a number of terrifying assembly bills for something similar, if this backfires and causes permanent harm to people?
The human body is incredibly complex. A doctor's oath includes "above all, do no harm", and most of the people that will be vaccinated have a 90%+ survival chance. Granted, the above is a very myopic view that completely ignores large scale economics - so please bare with me and use your medicine/ethics hat for it. Is this the right thing to do in the long run?
As a country, the US has proven track record of making stupid decisions in tough times (911 -> PATRIOT, etc).
This leads to frightening considerations. The reason FDA testing is so stringent is that trying to explain statistics along with a myriad of other fields, that are at this point likely too complex and exhaustive for any one human to fully comprehend even if they spent their entire lifetime learning, to the "public" for them to truly make an informed decision is a futile effort.
A vaccine is no doubt a great thing and much needed. Two things bother me very greatly about it:
1) A lot of testing was skipped. This will be injected into tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of people long before we even know the long term side effects. If by some very low chance this introduces an inheritable change, and if by an even lower chance that inheritable change leads to genetic collapse in 10-20 generations - just to be very clear, this is extremely unlikely - we have opened the window to humanity's end.
2) A far more realistic ethical concern is what happens to states (god forbid if the fed does it) who legally require this (unconstitutionally, of course, since most modern laws already are and nobody seems to have an issue with this) like New York who've already had a number of terrifying assembly bills for something similar, if this backfires and causes permanent harm to people?
The human body is incredibly complex. A doctor's oath includes "above all, do no harm", and most of the people that will be vaccinated have a 90%+ survival chance. Granted, the above is a very myopic view that completely ignores large scale economics - so please bare with me and use your medicine/ethics hat for it. Is this the right thing to do in the long run?
As a country, the US has proven track record of making stupid decisions in tough times (911 -> PATRIOT, etc).
> If by some very low chance this introduces an inheritable change, and if by an even lower chance that inheritable change leads to genetic collapse in 10-20 generations - just to be very clear, this is extremely unlikely - we have opened the window to humanity's end.
Indeed, extremely unlikely. Have you considered that writing this comment could also trigger the "end of humanity" by some as-of-yet unknown and unforeseen butterfly effect? Extremely unlikely, but still. Better consider it.
Indeed, extremely unlikely. Have you considered that writing this comment could also trigger the "end of humanity" by some as-of-yet unknown and unforeseen butterfly effect? Extremely unlikely, but still. Better consider it.
I just want to note that you clipped by part of my sentence that said "required for public acceptance", said that was bad, and ignored the previous clause which indicated extreme statistical evidence for its efficacy.
As for the rest of this nonsense, no, there is no chance that this induces a genetic collapse. mRNA vaccines do not alter your DNA.
As for the rest of this nonsense, no, there is no chance that this induces a genetic collapse. mRNA vaccines do not alter your DNA.
> If by some very low chance this introduces an inheritable change, and if by an even lower chance that inheritable change leads to genetic collapse in 10-20 generations - just to be very clear, this is extremely unlikely - we have opened the window to humanity's end.
That's such a vague, unqualified (in the "lacking specificity" sense) concern, that you could apply that to practically any new technology or medical treatment.
10-20 generations is 250-500 years, if somehow this particular vaccine did cause inheritable damage, I'm sure that medical technology would be advanced enough at that point to find a solution.
And on that timescale there's also much more tangible and evidential existential crises, like climate change and nuclear war.
That's such a vague, unqualified (in the "lacking specificity" sense) concern, that you could apply that to practically any new technology or medical treatment.
10-20 generations is 250-500 years, if somehow this particular vaccine did cause inheritable damage, I'm sure that medical technology would be advanced enough at that point to find a solution.
And on that timescale there's also much more tangible and evidential existential crises, like climate change and nuclear war.
[deleted]
I guess, from a business perspective, a vaccine manufacturer would seldom get a chance or a time like this. We are seeing history in making.
Literally the whole world is holding its breath for a vaccine to arrive.
Literally the whole world is holding its breath for a vaccine to arrive.
Too bad if we ever have a pandemic where developing a vaccine takes years.
If this works out, we will be far less prepared for the next one because, why bother ?
If this works out, we will be far less prepared for the next one because, why bother ?
To be fair, every day is history in the making.
Most days nothing happens that will be in the history books. Richard III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England was born on October 2, 1452. Most days in 1452 nothing happened that was important enough to go into any history books.
It is rushed, hence the emergency-use authorization.
In settings like nursing homes, with a 16% case-fatality rate, a vaccine with no reported safety concerns at the 0.003% level or better sounds real good.
In settings like nursing homes, with a 16% case-fatality rate, a vaccine with no reported safety concerns at the 0.003% level or better sounds real good.
They do stagger the release, these people do not have a billion doses available right away. The next step is a limited global release. Stage 4 of the medication begins, and the safety is tracked in the global release. Later in the year, there will be more doses available, and everyone will be able to get vaccinated.
Furthermore, these are considered normal trial sizes it's been tested on tens of thousand of individuals. Every test subject remains tracked. Up to now, there are no permanent adverse effects found in the population that was tested.
Furthermore, these are considered normal trial sizes it's been tested on tens of thousand of individuals. Every test subject remains tracked. Up to now, there are no permanent adverse effects found in the population that was tested.
Despite being extremely pro-vac I'm going to postpone getting vaccinated with this for as long as possible (at least a couple of years hopefully). Even if they would disallow me to travel abroad I would rather stay in my home country.
I've heard about a guy who volunteered to try the Russian vaccine - he got extremely sick and almost died from inflammatory cardiomyopathy as the result. So I want to see thousands of people who to get vaccinated and keep fine for some long time after that.
I've heard about a guy who volunteered to try the Russian vaccine - he got extremely sick and almost died from inflammatory cardiomyopathy as the result. So I want to see thousands of people who to get vaccinated and keep fine for some long time after that.
So....don't take the Russian vaccine?
Maybe take notice the of 20k in each trial who have received the vaccine?
Or maybe just go get Covid and trust those results?
Maybe take notice the of 20k in each trial who have received the vaccine?
Or maybe just go get Covid and trust those results?
> Or maybe just go get Covid and trust those results?
I believe I already had it. I have experienced unusual body temperature fluctuations and really unusual heart quirks on a weekend some months ago. My boss got tested (out of curiosity) positive for the antibodies. The numbers are huge and I meet a huge lot of people every day (nobody I've met in person reported any symptoms though). It seems logical to me all of us (people I know) have already had light/asymptomatic covid. I never meet old or fat people, I miss some but prefer not to risk.
I believe I already had it. I have experienced unusual body temperature fluctuations and really unusual heart quirks on a weekend some months ago. My boss got tested (out of curiosity) positive for the antibodies. The numbers are huge and I meet a huge lot of people every day (nobody I've met in person reported any symptoms though). It seems logical to me all of us (people I know) have already had light/asymptomatic covid. I never meet old or fat people, I miss some but prefer not to risk.
And what so?
Sputnik 5 is a live virus vaccine, Moderna and Fizer are RNA vaccines with, hopefully, no live viral material as such.
Sputnik 5 is a live virus vaccine, Moderna and Fizer are RNA vaccines with, hopefully, no live viral material as such.
It's not really a "live" virus - it's an adenovirus (actually, two types of adenovirus) that's been modified so that it can't replicate. The adenoviruses have also been modified to carry the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
Not really, it's not an inactivated adenovirus, just a strain that is much less strong in humans.
They apparently use what are called "replication-incompetent" or "replication-deficient" vectors: adenoviruses that have been genetically modified to be incapable of (or not very good at - I'm not sure) replicating.
Importantly, the vaccine does not use SARS-CoV-2, even in a weakened form. It just presents a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
Importantly, the vaccine does not use SARS-CoV-2, even in a weakened form. It just presents a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
This isn’t a mid 2000s windows OS update. Don’t be part of the problem, take the shot and grow up
> This isn’t a mid 2000s windows OS update.
It always is. This can never change. Experience has cemented "always wait for a service pack" as my #1 rule of life.
It always is. This can never change. Experience has cemented "always wait for a service pack" as my #1 rule of life.
very scientific
Implying people are children for holding different views than you is way less persuasive than you seem to think it is.
Pfizer selected New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas for their pilot delivery program "due to the states' immunization infrastructures, urban and rural variations, size and population diversity". First batches of vaccine will probably go to frontline medical workers first, followed by frail old people. a paper in Medrxiv favored "older first" model based on evolutionary game theory and mobility data, for largest decrease in mortality rates.
Can I get a link to the Medarxiv paper? Would be an interesting read.
I was referring to this paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/27/202...
I am guessing this is the one: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.14.20175257v...
Pretty interesting paper, although I'm not sure it's the one OP was referring to. It's a pretty short paper with a whole pile of graphs at the end, so I encourage people to read it themselves.
Quick notes from skimming:
- Treats it as an optimization problem for various levels of vaccine efficacy (10-100%), availability(10-100%), spread rate (R0 in {1.5, 2, 2.5, 3}), susceptibility to infection and symptomatic infection per age group.
- Four objective functions: symptomatic infections, deaths, non-ICU hospital usage at peak, and ICU usage at peak
- 5 age buckets: 0-19, 20-49, 50-64, 65-74, 75+
- Assumes 20% of population has immunity, and immunity lasts for a year.
- At higher efficacy and availability levels, there are some odd shifts to optimal vaccine distribution strategies. It's not strictly "oldest first" or "youngest first", there are some weird discontinuities in the middle buckets as well.
I had some questions about the wide 20-49 age bucket but it appears that it comes from a CDC planning scenario. It does look like that various curves start accelerating sharply past 50 or higher, so I guess treating the 20-49 group as one reasonably low risk group could be reasonable.
- Treats it as an optimization problem for various levels of vaccine efficacy (10-100%), availability(10-100%), spread rate (R0 in {1.5, 2, 2.5, 3}), susceptibility to infection and symptomatic infection per age group.
- Four objective functions: symptomatic infections, deaths, non-ICU hospital usage at peak, and ICU usage at peak
- 5 age buckets: 0-19, 20-49, 50-64, 65-74, 75+
- Assumes 20% of population has immunity, and immunity lasts for a year.
- At higher efficacy and availability levels, there are some odd shifts to optimal vaccine distribution strategies. It's not strictly "oldest first" or "youngest first", there are some weird discontinuities in the middle buckets as well.
I had some questions about the wide 20-49 age bucket but it appears that it comes from a CDC planning scenario. It does look like that various curves start accelerating sharply past 50 or higher, so I guess treating the 20-49 group as one reasonably low risk group could be reasonable.
Yes, there could be many different scenarios; when vaccine supply is limited, vaccinate those at risk of death. BioNTech claims their vaccine efficacy is consistent across age groups, but we won't know for sure until large clinical trials are completed. Also, older people are less willing to be vaccinated earlier. More variables to include in the model...
[deleted]
From reading the abstract, that study comes to the interesting finding that with a highly effective vaccine, it is better to vaccinate the YOUNG first, to reduce the spread.
What about... workers in the cafeteria who handle our food, cashiers at supermarkets and waiters who bring food over to you. I'm shocked most of the papers I'm reading don't mention these folks who are at the very intersection of our daily lives!
Probably too late for anybody's interest, but the risk of getting this from food is suspected to be incredibly low. Droplets being inhaled, entering through the eyes, or nasal mucous membranes are the likely real threats.
The paper assumes those people are vaccinated first, before the analysis for other age groups comes into play.
"Here, we consider that front-line health care workers and other essential personnel (e.g. firefighters, police) who should obviously be prioritized, have already been vaccinated."
"Here, we consider that front-line health care workers and other essential personnel (e.g. firefighters, police) who should obviously be prioritized, have already been vaccinated."
I guess that makes sense. The young seem to be the primary spreaders of the disease. Stop them, and then it slows the whole chain of infections. I can also see why they'd want to vaccinate the most vulnerable, if the young aren't really affected by the disease, it makes sense to skip them first. Conundrum I suppose.
[deleted]
-Great great news. Can't wait to get the needle in the arm ASAP.
-Seems extremely effective at limiting covid disease.
-Very curious as to how long will the vaccine immunity will last?
-Seems with the second dose for 18-55 year olds, perhaps 75% will feel fatigue, 50% have chills and 20% will have a fever.[1] This hasn't been widely shared yet and I'm a bit concerned how the public will react.
-Safety: Given the huge trial size, we can be pretty confident that there aren't any significant negative short term effects. But yet the phase three trials will follow the participants for two years. Presumably, this is to find out about longer term safety+efficacy... but yet of course we will be vaccinating most of the world prior to the end of those two years.
How are we confident that these vaccines don't cause any long term safety concerns? Other vaccines have been pulled from the market for safety reasons - what happened in those cases that we're sure won't happen in this case?
I think given the fact that "anti-vaxxers" exist makes some people take the complete opposite position to distance themselves from the conspiracy theorists- "anything a doctor injects in your arm is safe". Of course the truth is that injecting stuff in people's arms is not always safe - which is why we have trials. Were these trials long enough to know with a high level of confidence if there are any long term effects of the vaccines?
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33053279/
-Seems extremely effective at limiting covid disease.
-Very curious as to how long will the vaccine immunity will last?
-Seems with the second dose for 18-55 year olds, perhaps 75% will feel fatigue, 50% have chills and 20% will have a fever.[1] This hasn't been widely shared yet and I'm a bit concerned how the public will react.
-Safety: Given the huge trial size, we can be pretty confident that there aren't any significant negative short term effects. But yet the phase three trials will follow the participants for two years. Presumably, this is to find out about longer term safety+efficacy... but yet of course we will be vaccinating most of the world prior to the end of those two years.
How are we confident that these vaccines don't cause any long term safety concerns? Other vaccines have been pulled from the market for safety reasons - what happened in those cases that we're sure won't happen in this case?
I think given the fact that "anti-vaxxers" exist makes some people take the complete opposite position to distance themselves from the conspiracy theorists- "anything a doctor injects in your arm is safe". Of course the truth is that injecting stuff in people's arms is not always safe - which is why we have trials. Were these trials long enough to know with a high level of confidence if there are any long term effects of the vaccines?
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33053279/
Seems with the second dose for 18-55 year olds, perhaps 75% will feel fatigue, 50% have chills and 20% will have a fever.[1] This hasn't been widely shared yet and I'm a bit concerned how the public will react.
Isn't the Flu vaccine side effects the same though?
Isn't the Flu vaccine side effects the same though?
Looks like for fever, flue vaccine is more like 1-2%. So maybe 10-20x more fever with this vaccine than flu vaccine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/flu-shot-facts/2020/09...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/flu-shot-facts/2020/09...
Nah depends on what fever means. I got my flu shot this year, and I didn't have a fever, but felt like garbage for a day and a half where it was a struggle to have energy to do much of anything. Fever != feeling crappy.
Ya, the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine appears to make a pretty large majority of younger people feel fatigue. a safe vaccine does not mean a fun vaccine.
>Other vaccines have been pulled from the market for safety reasons
This isn't true at all. There has been 2 voluntary recalls due to manufacturing issues which not led to any health problems.
This isn't true at all. There has been 2 voluntary recalls due to manufacturing issues which not led to any health problems.
I don't believe that's an accurate statement. Problems have been rare, but not unheard of.
A list here for the US (most of the listed vaccines on the page were later found not concerning):
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
-The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition... the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew RotaShield from the market in October 1999.
-...that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS .
-And the very recent Dengue vaccine made by Sanofi, which was given to 700k people. "Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age."[1][2]
[1]https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/7190377...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy
A list here for the US (most of the listed vaccines on the page were later found not concerning):
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
-The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition... the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew RotaShield from the market in October 1999.
-...that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS .
-And the very recent Dengue vaccine made by Sanofi, which was given to 700k people. "Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age."[1][2]
[1]https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/7190377...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy
It's worth thinking about how many more people will die without the vaccine as well. The RotaSheild vaccine had major side effects 1 or 2 out of 10000 people, that's better than the current estimate death rate of COVID-19.
Agree for short term effects, even for young people. Due to the trial size, I think we can be confident that if there are any short-term safety issues with this vaccine they are extremely rare.
1,769 people 25-34 have died of Covid this year. There are 23m people in that age range. .0077% have died. If the vaccine had an adverse effect at a similar rate as covid has killed young people, we'd expect it should have showed in the trials in 1-3 people.
1,769 people 25-34 have died of Covid this year. There are 23m people in that age range. .0077% have died. If the vaccine had an adverse effect at a similar rate as covid has killed young people, we'd expect it should have showed in the trials in 1-3 people.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. Those are legitimate concerns. This vaccine has only been tested for a small number of months. We simply don't know whether it is safe long-term and what exact statistical level of safety it has. This is not some quasi-scientific bullshit about energies, these are simple medical facts. We have not been testing them. Testing is the only scientific method that matters.
I don't think anyone is saying that we should never sell any vaccine before it has been tested for 100+ years, that's obviously impossible. But to ignore obvious concerns is just religious scientifism in the worst possible sense.
These are good concerns for any medication.
I don't think anyone is saying that we should never sell any vaccine before it has been tested for 100+ years, that's obviously impossible. But to ignore obvious concerns is just religious scientifism in the worst possible sense.
These are good concerns for any medication.
My theory is that anti vaxxers have poisoned the public conversation (if you say anything questioning a vaccine you shall be shunned). I plan to get this vaccine and generally trust our scientific institutions.
But of course there are legitimate safety concerns with injecting stuff into people - which is why they ran a huge study to show that there are no short term safety concerns.
I'm just asking (not implying anything) a real medical question I don't know the answer to - how do we know this vaccine doesn't increase the chances of some condition 20 years later when the median time people have been vaccinated is two months? And with a brand new vaccine platform that has never been used before...
But of course there are legitimate safety concerns with injecting stuff into people - which is why they ran a huge study to show that there are no short term safety concerns.
I'm just asking (not implying anything) a real medical question I don't know the answer to - how do we know this vaccine doesn't increase the chances of some condition 20 years later when the median time people have been vaccinated is two months? And with a brand new vaccine platform that has never been used before...
It is my understanding that adversaries of Western nations have already started disinformation campaigns to mess up the vaccination effort. The entire Bill Gates / 5G causes COVID discussion from a few months back was fabricated; their current playbooks should be more sophisticated and target also outside the big social networks, perhaps even on this very site.
Also, that governments will show little patience for anti-vax talk of its citizens. They'll have to switch talking points from avoiding panic (It's harmless for young people!) to accepting the vaccine (There are many long-term effects of infection!). A Herculean effort in balancing propaganda with allowing free speech.
If nothing else, it is going to be interesting watching the next months unfold. Saying you are refusing the vaccine may simply put you on a list, but openly detracting from the vaccination efforts, should see some actual (and scary) pushback.
Public health will be an increasingly difficult thing to manage, when individuals get the information for their decisions online (however wrong).
Also, that governments will show little patience for anti-vax talk of its citizens. They'll have to switch talking points from avoiding panic (It's harmless for young people!) to accepting the vaccine (There are many long-term effects of infection!). A Herculean effort in balancing propaganda with allowing free speech.
If nothing else, it is going to be interesting watching the next months unfold. Saying you are refusing the vaccine may simply put you on a list, but openly detracting from the vaccination efforts, should see some actual (and scary) pushback.
Public health will be an increasingly difficult thing to manage, when individuals get the information for their decisions online (however wrong).
We have learned a lot about how the human body works. There is no plausible way that there could be something bad: the vaccine breaks down in the way RNA does withing minutes of entering the body. If anything bad happens because of RNA breakdown: you wouldn't have been born as RNA is basic to cell biology and breaks down as part of normal processes all the time.
The first mRNA vaccine went to phase 1 trials more than 10 years, which means we have a few people walking around who got a mRNA vaccine more than 10 years ago - if they got a side effect it wouldn't be noted. The sample size is of course too small, and it was a different vaccine, but there some long term safety data.
Anything is possible. My physics teachers like to point out that all the air in the room can teleport to the moon - but the odds of that are too low to worry about, even on the time frame of the universe.
The first mRNA vaccine went to phase 1 trials more than 10 years, which means we have a few people walking around who got a mRNA vaccine more than 10 years ago - if they got a side effect it wouldn't be noted. The sample size is of course too small, and it was a different vaccine, but there some long term safety data.
Anything is possible. My physics teachers like to point out that all the air in the room can teleport to the moon - but the odds of that are too low to worry about, even on the time frame of the universe.
Anyone know why China is not on the list of countries in which Pfizer is seeking regulatory approval?
Pfizer will start another smaller trial in China to generate local safety data, which will be combined with its global data as it seeks regulatory approval in china. [1]
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3110042/coro...
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3110042/coro...
China is making their own vaccines.
Because China already has a "national" vaccine, and they see no chance getting through Chinese bureaucracy for such a politicised deal?
"yes you can sell here, we only need to know the ingredients and know-how of this vaccine to approve its safety"
Don't worry they already have it in hand and analyzing it I would be willing to bet.
Isn’t it like that in the rest of the world?
The requirement of forming joint ventures has been dropped since 2014. The 'forced tech transfer' rhetoric has been out of date since the first day of the trade war.
This page says any manufacturing except electric automobiles and airplanes is subject to 50% requirement as of 2018:
https://www.mondaq.com/china/export-controls-trade-investmen...
https://www.mondaq.com/china/export-controls-trade-investmen...
[deleted]
China has its' own regulatory requirements which typically (I don't know in this case if China is asking for it) requires a specific trial in an Asian population in order to get approval.
I'm assuming that China is probably not waiving that requirement since they have their own vaccines.
I'm assuming that China is probably not waiving that requirement since they have their own vaccines.
Perhaps because the Chinese company "Fosun Pharmaceutical", as the other sponsor[1] of this vaccine, is the one which has the right to distribute it in China?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNT162b2#Funding
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNT162b2#Funding
speeder(5)
[deleted]
Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)
To continue this analogy, this is more along the lines of a patch to fix a remote code execution bug that is being actively exploited in the wild at an increasing rate. Your alternative is to only connect to the network very infrequently, using a draconian firewall which doesn't completely protect you and hope for the best.
The security patch has been tested on tens of thousands instances for several months, the source code peer reviewed by literally the best experts in the world, and you'll most likely have to wait until its been installed on several million other endpoints before you get a chance at distribution?
The security patch has been tested on tens of thousands instances for several months, the source code peer reviewed by literally the best experts in the world, and you'll most likely have to wait until its been installed on several million other endpoints before you get a chance at distribution?
The difference is that it is not yet fully understood how humans work.
If you patch a machine and leave it alone, it will stay like that.
Humans age, already have or will get other kinds of diseases, have wildly varied genes, etc..
Drugs could have side effects not manifesting immediately, v2 of the same drug might have less of those side effects.
If you patch a machine and leave it alone, it will stay like that.
Humans age, already have or will get other kinds of diseases, have wildly varied genes, etc..
Drugs could have side effects not manifesting immediately, v2 of the same drug might have less of those side effects.
Its likely, that, like the flu jab, those most at risk will get it first. The vast majority of diligent users here will not be beta testers.
Depending on how it works that is. It might be more effective to jab those most likely to transmit the disease first. (E.g. medical workers, children before Christmas meeting the family) or it might be better to jab those most at risk first.
Depending on how it works that is. It might be more effective to jab those most likely to transmit the disease first. (E.g. medical workers, children before Christmas meeting the family) or it might be better to jab those most at risk first.
Medical workers will get it first, as without them we can’t vaccinate the rest of us.
I wonder if it's really that smart to give our healthcare workers a minimally tested vaccine first.
My understanding of at least the Pfizer vaccine was that it primarily lowered the risk of developing COVID from a
COV-19 infection. Also if I read it properly that means you could/would wond up in the asymptomatic spreader category.
IF all of that is true (and if i misunderstood, please correct me!) It would make the most sense to give it to higher risk individuals first.
IF all of that is true (and if i misunderstood, please correct me!) It would make the most sense to give it to higher risk individuals first.
This is another specific scientific communication, of the type that are widely misunderstood. Remember "no evidence that masks reduce transmission" and "no evidence that immunity from COVID will last"? Both were true statements at the time, and widely misunderstood. "No evidence" of X does not mean that X is at all likely to happen, based on our current understanding of disease.
Because of the test design, the test itself only measured people who got COVID. But based on current scientific consensus around disease, that means there is a very high likelihood that it also prevents asymptomatic transmission, as the immune system will generally fight off infection. One test being narrowly worded (as is correct scientific practice) does not overthrow our entire understanding of disease.
Because of the test design, the test itself only measured people who got COVID. But based on current scientific consensus around disease, that means there is a very high likelihood that it also prevents asymptomatic transmission, as the immune system will generally fight off infection. One test being narrowly worded (as is correct scientific practice) does not overthrow our entire understanding of disease.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest I had heard was that _pre-symptomatic_ spread was the issue rather than asysmptomatic. As in, if you got covid but never developed symptoms, you likely never had enough viral load to transmit the virus. If you later showed symptoms then you likely had a high viral load between contraction and showing symptoms and were likely to transmit the virus. So if this stops the symptoms, it may also stop the viral load from reaching transmitable levels.
Yeah, that's my understanding as well. There's a period of time between when you initially get it and when you start showing symptoms (4-5 days is the number I've heard) where you are contagious but most likely don't know it. That's why Covid is particularly nasty, because it spreads before it shows symptoms.
I am one of those most at risk people and like hell am I going to get it first. It looks like it will be safe but I can weather a few more months self isolation while it is adopted on a more massive scale.
Me too, give my issues with asthma/age and not having a family to support me if I get ill, I am ready right now. If other people choose to wait 10 years that is their option.
People apparently didnt like my hesitation to be first in line for the vaccine. The weird thing is that I am not against this vaccine by any means, I hope it works very well. But you and me are in a position where we would be in a very bad situation if something went wrong.
I dont mind a few more months of staying safe, its not a big deal to me and Ill get it later on
I dont mind a few more months of staying safe, its not a big deal to me and Ill get it later on
As someone who has some experience with clinical trials and drug approvals, I'd be quite comfortable taking the vaccine. A clinical trial size of 40,000 (20,000 receiving the vaccine) is way larger than a lot of other drugs that people are comfortable taking.
Is there zero risk of serious side effects? Of course not, there never is. But the trial gives enough data to say the risk is worth the benefit.
Edit: The FDA has already hinted that their initial approval (EUA) may be restricted to certain populations where the risk-benefit is justified. In other words, they may not approve it for healthy, young adults where the risk of serious Covid complications is low. That "full" approval could come later after additional clinical experience is gained.
Is there zero risk of serious side effects? Of course not, there never is. But the trial gives enough data to say the risk is worth the benefit.
Edit: The FDA has already hinted that their initial approval (EUA) may be restricted to certain populations where the risk-benefit is justified. In other words, they may not approve it for healthy, young adults where the risk of serious Covid complications is low. That "full" approval could come later after additional clinical experience is gained.
can you give an example of popular drugs that have been approved with smaller trials?
I have never personally seen a randomized study with anywhere near 40k+ participants for any cardiology or cancer-related treatment. Recruitment for this vaccine trial is much easier than studies with specific conditions like heart attack, stroke, or cancers, simply due to their incidence rates. In cardiology, a 20k subject study is massive in scale.
All this to say that for the pivotal phase 3 trials submitted to FDA for approval, I would suppose almost all existing drugs had much fewer than 40k participants.
All this to say that for the pivotal phase 3 trials submitted to FDA for approval, I would suppose almost all existing drugs had much fewer than 40k participants.
I haven't dug into the older approvals of Lipitor into a ton of detail, but you can find them on the FDA website.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?ev...
It looks like the initial approval of Lipitor was in the hundreds of patients. Now, statins were brand new and not used really broadly. Pfizer did a ton of follow up studies, but looking at the most current label.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/02...
The two biggest trials, ASCOT and CARDS, which measured improvements in mortality (needed to be big trials to measure any difference), they were ~10,000 and ~2,000 patients each.
So suffice to say, Lipitor, which is used in a massive population, has probably been tested, in clinical trials, on a total number of patients comparable to the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial. Obviously the duration of the Lipitor trials were much longer and there a massive body of clinical data from actual use, but it at least gives you some perspective on numbers.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?ev...
It looks like the initial approval of Lipitor was in the hundreds of patients. Now, statins were brand new and not used really broadly. Pfizer did a ton of follow up studies, but looking at the most current label.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/02...
The two biggest trials, ASCOT and CARDS, which measured improvements in mortality (needed to be big trials to measure any difference), they were ~10,000 and ~2,000 patients each.
So suffice to say, Lipitor, which is used in a massive population, has probably been tested, in clinical trials, on a total number of patients comparable to the Pfizer Covid vaccine trial. Obviously the duration of the Lipitor trials were much longer and there a massive body of clinical data from actual use, but it at least gives you some perspective on numbers.
Pretty much every psychiatric drug has been approved with much smaller trials.
Vaccine trials tend to be larger because you have to account for the fact that only a small number of people will get infected.
Vaccine trials tend to be larger because you have to account for the fact that only a small number of people will get infected.
It also depends on the known safety profile. With AstraZeneca some people already have to take pain medications after taking the vaccine...I wouldn't be comfortable putting using that vaccine without much wider testing. Fortunately I don't need to though, because soon we'll probably have 2 great vaccines to choose from.
Taking OTC pain relief medicines after a vaccine is not that unusual, either for pain or fever. Ask any parent who has gone through a vaccine series with their kid.
And I can remember getting my tetanus booster in secondary school and when I rolled over in my sleep waking up because my shoulder was so swollen and painful.
I'm not dismissing the fact that the vaccines might cause serious side effects. In fact, it's expected that some very small percentage will. But for the vast majority of patients, the Pfizer vaccine has a similar safety profile to other approved vaccines.
And I can remember getting my tetanus booster in secondary school and when I rolled over in my sleep waking up because my shoulder was so swollen and painful.
I'm not dismissing the fact that the vaccines might cause serious side effects. In fact, it's expected that some very small percentage will. But for the vast majority of patients, the Pfizer vaccine has a similar safety profile to other approved vaccines.
I was talking about AstraZeneca that would be the first vaccine using a modified adenovirus. It looks to have somewhat more side effects than the Pfitzer vaccine.
I got a tetanus shot about two months ago. I used pain medication (just normal-ass ibuprofen) because the injection site gets very sore after a few days. There's a lot of valid reasons to be concerned about being in the early run of a brand new vaccination, but injection site having a bit of pain is hardly one of them.
Is that not a common side effect of all vaccines? I can't think of a time when I haven't had to take Advil for a couple days after getting the flu shot due to body aches.
I don't think pain serious enough to warrant medication is common at all. I used to administer flu vaccines in a former life, and I've never heard of anyone having such a strong reaction. Most people have some very mild soreness in their arm at most.
> Fortunately I don't need to though, because soon we'll probably have 2 great vaccines to choose from.
Indeed! And I'll be going with the adenoviral route which has been used for more than fifty years, rather than the brand new, first time ever mRNA product.
Indeed! And I'll be going with the adenoviral route which has been used for more than fifty years, rather than the brand new, first time ever mRNA product.
>Indeed! And I'll be going with the adenoviral route which has been used for more than fifty years, rather than the brand new, first time ever mRNA product.
Interesting, I feel the exact opposite. I can't wait to take a mRNA vaccine, but the adenovirus ones seem sketchy given that Sinovac, J&J, and AstraZeneca have all seen serious adverse events in their trials, while Pfizer and Moderna have seen none, along with much higher efficacy.
I wasn't aware there were any adenoviral vaccinations approved for human use? What are you referring to?
Interesting, I feel the exact opposite. I can't wait to take a mRNA vaccine, but the adenovirus ones seem sketchy given that Sinovac, J&J, and AstraZeneca have all seen serious adverse events in their trials, while Pfizer and Moderna have seen none, along with much higher efficacy.
I wasn't aware there were any adenoviral vaccinations approved for human use? What are you referring to?
Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG): https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a682809.html
I think Zabdeno (Ad26.ZEBOV) and Mvabea (MVA-BN-Filo) for ebola vaccination is the most recent example. Also from Janssen (J&J).
[deleted]
[deleted]
What are your main concerns with the mRNA product? Are you afraid of long term side effects? We already know that it has less short term side effects than the adenoviral vaccine. Actually I'd like to see deeper thinking about it from professionals.
I'm not a medical doctor, but I do work in pharma and I have tried to inform myself. Still, I could be quite wrong.
Yes, I do have some concerns regarding long term effects of mRNA based vaccines. As you said, I would also like to see some deeper thinking about this. I feel that other delivery vectors may be better known and have an existing track record.
I also understand that mRNA treatments have had some excellent outcomes in cancer patients. However, these treatments have been highly personalised, based on the patient's own DNA. Therefore, I also wonder about the general medium and longer term effectiveness of mRNA for coronavirus vaccination.
I'm in no way an anti-vaxer. I'm completely vaccinated for all the common things (MMR etc). As is my child. No problems with something that's been around for a long time and is well known.
I would just like to make my own choice regarding which brand new, accelerated testing regime, vaccine I decide to inject.
Yes, I do have some concerns regarding long term effects of mRNA based vaccines. As you said, I would also like to see some deeper thinking about this. I feel that other delivery vectors may be better known and have an existing track record.
I also understand that mRNA treatments have had some excellent outcomes in cancer patients. However, these treatments have been highly personalised, based on the patient's own DNA. Therefore, I also wonder about the general medium and longer term effectiveness of mRNA for coronavirus vaccination.
I'm in no way an anti-vaxer. I'm completely vaccinated for all the common things (MMR etc). As is my child. No problems with something that's been around for a long time and is well known.
I would just like to make my own choice regarding which brand new, accelerated testing regime, vaccine I decide to inject.
> I also understand that mRNA treatments have had some excellent outcomes in cancer patients
One interesting thing is that I was quite worried that in April/May all these experimental treatments have been stopped, because all the most interesting companies were forced to redirect their focus to COVID (the only reason you could use a lab). I'm relieved, that at least we got something in return: derisking mRNA as a delivery method, and showing that it's far superior to older ones. You're right that we don't have medium / long term data yet, but this article is quite relevant:
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-b...
Linial explained that “mRNA is a very fragile molecule, meaning it can be destroyed very easily... If you put mRNA on the table, for example, in a minute there will not be any mRNA leftover. This is as opposed to DNA, which is as stable as you get.” She said that this fragility is true of the mRNA of any living thing, whether it belongs to a plant, bacteria, virus or human. As such, she said the worry should not be that the mRNA won’t get into the cells and instead will stay outside, floating in the body and causing some kind of reaction. Rather the concern should be that if it doesn’t enter the cells, it will disintegrate and therefore be ineffective.
One interesting thing is that I was quite worried that in April/May all these experimental treatments have been stopped, because all the most interesting companies were forced to redirect their focus to COVID (the only reason you could use a lab). I'm relieved, that at least we got something in return: derisking mRNA as a delivery method, and showing that it's far superior to older ones. You're right that we don't have medium / long term data yet, but this article is quite relevant:
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-b...
Linial explained that “mRNA is a very fragile molecule, meaning it can be destroyed very easily... If you put mRNA on the table, for example, in a minute there will not be any mRNA leftover. This is as opposed to DNA, which is as stable as you get.” She said that this fragility is true of the mRNA of any living thing, whether it belongs to a plant, bacteria, virus or human. As such, she said the worry should not be that the mRNA won’t get into the cells and instead will stay outside, floating in the body and causing some kind of reaction. Rather the concern should be that if it doesn’t enter the cells, it will disintegrate and therefore be ineffective.
Maybe this is a good place to tag on a question that someone reading this might be able to answer - while I know it hasn't bee tried yet so we don't 'know' yet, are there any theories on what would happen if you take multiple vaccines? Would that provide extra protection, could they react to each other negatively, or would it have (theoretically) no effect?
I think it's better not to experiment with it. It would take too much effort, especially as the Moderna vaccine has much better stability profile (it looks like the clear winner for hot climates / places where refrigerating is hard)
These are all short-term studies. Given that this is a completely new type of vaccine, a certain amount of scepticism about its long-term effects is warranted in my opinion. Personally I fail to see what benefits non-vulnerable people have from immediately being vaccinated.
"Non-vulnerable people" means "people who probably won't die if they catch the disease". There are a lot of nasty things that COVID-19 can do to you besides kill you. Many people have lost legs because of the clotting associated with it, which can also cause strokes resulting in permanent brain damage (which is actually more common in young healthy patients), some have permanently lost their sense of taste. Even those who do come out without major disabilities have to spend two weeks with their throats constricted to the size of a coffee straw.
The idea that COVID-19 is somehow less dangerous than having some RNA in your blood for a few hours (remember, it disintegrates fast when above -70C) is completely insane.
The idea that COVID-19 is somehow less dangerous than having some RNA in your blood for a few hours (remember, it disintegrates fast when above -70C) is completely insane.
There's a good portion of people with long-term effects that weren't "vulnerable" but end up with chronic fatigue, lung damage, or mental health problems.
If you compare the frequency of those side effects alone vs. the rarity of side effects we've seen in historical "bad" vaccines, you still end up with a pretty obvious cost-benefit in favor of taking it. From that point of view, "even smaller chance of dying" becomes just a perk.
If you compare the frequency of those side effects alone vs. the rarity of side effects we've seen in historical "bad" vaccines, you still end up with a pretty obvious cost-benefit in favor of taking it. From that point of view, "even smaller chance of dying" becomes just a perk.
I doubt that's a high percentage of infected people. Do you have statistics that back up that claim?
Heart complications (inflammation): up to 60% (after removing pre-existing)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...
Mental illness: 20% within 5 weeks
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...
Chronic Fatigue: 50% at 10 weeks
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.29.20164293v...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...
Mental illness: 20% within 5 weeks
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...
Chronic Fatigue: 50% at 10 weeks
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.29.20164293v...
How does that compare with other viral illnesses?
Not downplaying, I've had bad episodes of flu that left me low on energy for weeks, want to see how that compares and if it's been looked into (I expect not given recency).
My recovery from Covid in March was about on par with a bad flu, was late April until I felt good again and was back to normal on a physical level.
Not downplaying, I've had bad episodes of flu that left me low on energy for weeks, want to see how that compares and if it's been looked into (I expect not given recency).
My recovery from Covid in March was about on par with a bad flu, was late April until I felt good again and was back to normal on a physical level.
Thanks for the links. So how do I know these value are abnormally high compared to say a severe flu? I've read in the thread on hn that posted about the mental illness results that the values for a severe flu are 13%. And what implications do, say, a "lower left ventricular ejection fraction, higher left ventricle volumes, and raised native T1 and T2" have? Why is that worse than the risk of potentially (without knowing any probabilities obviously) developing autoimmune conditions as a result of taking the vaccine?
> Why is that worse than the risk of potentially (without knowing any probabilities obviously) developing autoimmune conditions as a result of taking the vaccine?
Well, in the 20,000 dosages in the pfizer vaccines, I believe there was no autoimmune conditions found. I think Moderna was the same. If that's your concern, maybe steer clear of the AstraZeneca/ChAdOx1 vaccine.
There are two main components to the vaccine, the RNA itself, and the proteins it causes the cell to make. Both naturally break down and are removed from the body very quickly--in hours to days from my understanding, so one could use that to conjecture that longer term effects are perhaps less likely in this case and something like that would show up sooner.
We're not really comparing flu stats vs. covid stats. I'd argue these things are not good whether they come from a severe flu or covid, so that seems like a red herring? Here our choice is "what is more likely to mess me up badly, a vaccine designed, tested and peer reviewed with a do-no-harm mindset, or the virus behind a pandemic that has killed more than a million people worldwide."
Well, in the 20,000 dosages in the pfizer vaccines, I believe there was no autoimmune conditions found. I think Moderna was the same. If that's your concern, maybe steer clear of the AstraZeneca/ChAdOx1 vaccine.
There are two main components to the vaccine, the RNA itself, and the proteins it causes the cell to make. Both naturally break down and are removed from the body very quickly--in hours to days from my understanding, so one could use that to conjecture that longer term effects are perhaps less likely in this case and something like that would show up sooner.
We're not really comparing flu stats vs. covid stats. I'd argue these things are not good whether they come from a severe flu or covid, so that seems like a red herring? Here our choice is "what is more likely to mess me up badly, a vaccine designed, tested and peer reviewed with a do-no-harm mindset, or the virus behind a pandemic that has killed more than a million people worldwide."
> We're not really comparing flu stats vs. covid stats. I'd argue these things are not good whether they come from a severe flu or covid, so that seems like a red herring?
Do you get a flu vaccine each year?
Do you get a flu vaccine each year?
Yes. No problems, ever.
The long term covid effects are exactly what worries me about this vaccine. If a vaccine is an inactive or reduced version of the real thing, why wouldn't they have similar effects?
None of the initial vaccines use anything remotely resembling an inactive virus, much less a attenuated virus.
> Personally I fail to see what benefits non-vulnerable people have from immediately being vaccinated.
covid can do/does plenty of nasty things to "non vulnerable" people besides kill them
covid can do/does plenty of nasty things to "non vulnerable" people besides kill them
During the 2009 Swine Flu epidemic, I designed ancillary equipment for a bioreactor used for making an experimental vaccine. If any supplier or subcontractor was dragging their feet, all we had to say was "this is for a machine which makes the swine flue vaccine" and we suddenly would somehow jump to the front of their queue. I imagine the situation is even more that way for anyone involved with Covid vaccines, so I am 0% surprised by how efficiently this was developed. Magical things happen with price and priority are no longer concerns. (edit:sp)
> A clinical trial size of 40,000 (20,000 receiving the vaccine) is way larger than a lot of other drugs that people are comfortable taking.
Note that the clinical trials for this vaccine 100% excluded pregnant women, and required males to agree to use two forms of contraception. IIUC they also excluded people with prior exposure to COVID-19.
I'd take it if I were 60, certainly 70 - an 80 year old with pre-existing conditions has a shockingly high 20% infection fatality rate(1). But at 35 and in decent health, with little exposure to at risk people around me? Better off to wait.
For healthy children and teens, it's going to take far more data to know if the vaccines are safer than COVID-19. For them it's about a 1 in 1 million fatality rate per infection(1). And we've screwed up before: one of the H1N1 vaccines turned out to occasionally cause narcolepsy, and that wasn't even novel vaccine technology.
1) https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e003094
Note that the clinical trials for this vaccine 100% excluded pregnant women, and required males to agree to use two forms of contraception. IIUC they also excluded people with prior exposure to COVID-19.
I'd take it if I were 60, certainly 70 - an 80 year old with pre-existing conditions has a shockingly high 20% infection fatality rate(1). But at 35 and in decent health, with little exposure to at risk people around me? Better off to wait.
For healthy children and teens, it's going to take far more data to know if the vaccines are safer than COVID-19. For them it's about a 1 in 1 million fatality rate per infection(1). And we've screwed up before: one of the H1N1 vaccines turned out to occasionally cause narcolepsy, and that wasn't even novel vaccine technology.
1) https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e003094
Too late for that - the beta testers have already found it good. A phase 3 trial is beta test.
Phase 4 is like the RC, and by that point it seems to be pretty stable.
I think they add more age groups and diversity as a followup.
Phase 4 trials are typically post-approval and used to validate marketing claims ("Pfizer's Covid vaccine is also proven to promote weight loss," for example). The result of a phase 3 trial is a release candidate, and the FDA (or equivalent organization) stamps the RC as gold master.
The phase 3 trials is not over yet for another 2 years... which no one wants to wait for... hence the emergency use authorization.
jdndbfbf(7)
I think differently than you. I figure that 20,000 people have had this and haven't had serious complications. So probably a better than 1/20k change that if I get this I'll be okay. And I'll have a much better idea of this by the time I get it since I'm unlikely to get the first round of vaccines anyway since I'm not in an elevated risk group.
Meanwhile, out of a 23,359,180 males in my age group (25-34) in the US, 1,144--or 1 in 20,418--have died [0]. And obviously, the death rate is significantly higher than 1 in 20,418, because not every 25-34 year old has had COVID.
If I get the vaccine and I can go back to living my life normally, that alone is worth the low risk to me. And sure, there's the (remote) possibility that the vaccine has some long-term side effects, but I have to weigh that against the (in my mind higher) possibility of COVID having some long term side effect.
Given that I can't practically isolate myself completely for the next 8 months, I'm getting this vaccine as soon as possible.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
Meanwhile, out of a 23,359,180 males in my age group (25-34) in the US, 1,144--or 1 in 20,418--have died [0]. And obviously, the death rate is significantly higher than 1 in 20,418, because not every 25-34 year old has had COVID.
If I get the vaccine and I can go back to living my life normally, that alone is worth the low risk to me. And sure, there's the (remote) possibility that the vaccine has some long-term side effects, but I have to weigh that against the (in my mind higher) possibility of COVID having some long term side effect.
Given that I can't practically isolate myself completely for the next 8 months, I'm getting this vaccine as soon as possible.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
This comment and another got me looking into mRNA more. It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics.
mRNA is usually produced by DNA and is temporarily used by cells to create proteins. In this case, the mRNA is used to create proteins with a similar structure to the coronavirus. These proteins produce the desired immune response but do not harm you. Like other proteins, they don't stick around permanently, just the immune response does. Additionally, the mRNA itself only lasts several minutes to days. [0]
It's a relatively simple biological process that's well understood. This gives me a lot of confidence in its safety profile. Unlike a regular vaccine, you also don't have to create the protein directly, which leads to fewer errors during production from my understanding. You're producing a simpler, more basic compound, and can be more certain about the quality of individual doses.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation
mRNA is usually produced by DNA and is temporarily used by cells to create proteins. In this case, the mRNA is used to create proteins with a similar structure to the coronavirus. These proteins produce the desired immune response but do not harm you. Like other proteins, they don't stick around permanently, just the immune response does. Additionally, the mRNA itself only lasts several minutes to days. [0]
It's a relatively simple biological process that's well understood. This gives me a lot of confidence in its safety profile. Unlike a regular vaccine, you also don't have to create the protein directly, which leads to fewer errors during production from my understanding. You're producing a simpler, more basic compound, and can be more certain about the quality of individual doses.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation
> It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics.
This is a really good analogy. It's important to note that this stuff literally has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures just so it won't completely degrade before being injected. Once inside your body, it's completely gone within hours.
This is a really good analogy. It's important to note that this stuff literally has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures just so it won't completely degrade before being injected. Once inside your body, it's completely gone within hours.
Is there a way to package the vaccine that would "prove" proper handling all through the chain of custody? Sort of the biological equivalent of the shock tags moving companies put on boxes containing fragile items.
Given how sensitive to temperature this vaccine is, I would like some reassurance that no one mishandled it along the way.
Given how sensitive to temperature this vaccine is, I would like some reassurance that no one mishandled it along the way.
It's not proof to you, but Pfizer is shipping the vaccine in boxes that monitor temperature and location and transmit it to them so they can watch it. I trust that they wouldn't allow risky doses to be used. The risk to them of something bad happening and the public losing trust in the vaccine is too great.
I'm less concerned about Pfizer mishandling it than medical facilities and doctor's offices which may not be used to dealing with doses that are temperature sensitive to such an extreme.
You know, the nurse who queues up a few doses at a time and then gets delayed in actually administering them.
You know, the nurse who queues up a few doses at a time and then gets delayed in actually administering them.
Well, unless you're over 75, you probably won't be offered it for quite a long time. For that age group, the chances of dying of covid are far higher than the risks from the vaccine, to the degree of precision we know from the phase 3 trial. By the time they've been vaccinated, we'll have a lot more data, and those error bounds will be quantified so you can make a better informed decision.
There is a known zero day in the current version that is being actively exploited in the wild. If your system is sufficiently air gabbed waiting is probably fine, but otherwise would you risk it?
Same. I'm not an anti-vaxxer or anything like that. But I think "don't use version 1.0" advice applies here just like it does for software. Especially given the possibility that things have been "hurried" in the name of expediency in terms of getting the vaccine(s) developed, tested, and approved.
The good news, in a sort of perverse sense, is that some delay to see what happens with "early adopters" is kinda inevitable anyway, due to the distribution logistics. Unless you're a health care provider, first responder, or in a high risk group, you'll probably have to wait a while to get access to the vaccine even if you want to take "version 1.0".
The good news, in a sort of perverse sense, is that some delay to see what happens with "early adopters" is kinda inevitable anyway, due to the distribution logistics. Unless you're a health care provider, first responder, or in a high risk group, you'll probably have to wait a while to get access to the vaccine even if you want to take "version 1.0".
If the enemy is charging my base and someone offers me armor I'm not going to wait for all my fellow soldiers to try it out and see what happens.
The issue here isn’t is the armor effective but would it explode and kill you without even being hit.
There have been plenty of mishaps with vaccines the last swine vaccine for example had severe side effects that caused disabilities.
When you plan to vaccinate millions of people even 1% of severe long term side effects is something you can’t afford.
Having the companies also being essentially exempt from future damages also complicates things because people might suffer from life altering side effects and would not be compensated for.
There have been plenty of mishaps with vaccines the last swine vaccine for example had severe side effects that caused disabilities.
When you plan to vaccinate millions of people even 1% of severe long term side effects is something you can’t afford.
Having the companies also being essentially exempt from future damages also complicates things because people might suffer from life altering side effects and would not be compensated for.
Sounds like a reasonable position, until you extend the analogy: there is a slight, but nonetheless real chance that said armor has seriously adverse health effects on you. Maybe it spontaneously grows spikes and punctures your insides.
Additionally, you also have, as an individual, the option to just stand further back in the line. You don't have to get in immediate contact with the enemy, you can just go to the back of the army and wait for some time until the experimental armor is battle tested.
What sounds like the more rational choice (from an individual standpoint) now?
EDIT: not sure why this is getting downvotes. I do agree that the risk equation does seem leaning towards taking the vaccine. Tests have been conducted with >30.000 people, and so far it seems safe. There still exists of course a probability of that not being the case, but compared to the (known, and very real) side effects of covid, taking the vaccine asap even if it's version 1.0 seems like the sensible choice.
Still, parents analogy seemed flawed so I tried to extend it.
Additionally, you also have, as an individual, the option to just stand further back in the line. You don't have to get in immediate contact with the enemy, you can just go to the back of the army and wait for some time until the experimental armor is battle tested.
What sounds like the more rational choice (from an individual standpoint) now?
EDIT: not sure why this is getting downvotes. I do agree that the risk equation does seem leaning towards taking the vaccine. Tests have been conducted with >30.000 people, and so far it seems safe. There still exists of course a probability of that not being the case, but compared to the (known, and very real) side effects of covid, taking the vaccine asap even if it's version 1.0 seems like the sensible choice.
Still, parents analogy seemed flawed so I tried to extend it.
>"Sounds like a reasonable position, until you extend the analogy: there is a slight, but nonetheless real chance that said armor has seriously adverse health effects on you. Maybe it spontaneously grows spikes and punctures your insides."
Maybe it does. And maybe it will also turn me into a frog. But we can only deal with known knowns and known unknowns. You have to weigh that against the risk of COVID infection, multiplied by the misery of not being able to live a normal life.
I'll take the small, abstract, unknowable chance of something bad that has no known mechanism of action versus the empirically quantifiable reality of living in fear of COVID. These are unprecedented times, and we have to trust in science. It's gotten us this far.
Maybe it does. And maybe it will also turn me into a frog. But we can only deal with known knowns and known unknowns. You have to weigh that against the risk of COVID infection, multiplied by the misery of not being able to live a normal life.
I'll take the small, abstract, unknowable chance of something bad that has no known mechanism of action versus the empirically quantifiable reality of living in fear of COVID. These are unprecedented times, and we have to trust in science. It's gotten us this far.
Still, parents analogy seemed flawed so I tried to extend it.
All analogies are flawed. That's why they are merely suggestive and not meant to be interpreted overly literally.
All analogies are flawed. That's why they are merely suggestive and not meant to be interpreted overly literally.
I wonder if any software product managers ever conceived that in shipping software with known bugs to meet a deadline, they'd somehow be slightly eroding people's faith in vaccination science.
It's kind of wild when you think about it.
It's kind of wild when you think about it.
From all the data data we have it looks like the vaccine is orders of magnitude safer than the virus.
Yes vaccines can sometimes do weird things to the immune system, but viruses are far more likely to jack up the immune system than most vaccines.
Yes vaccines can sometimes do weird things to the immune system, but viruses are far more likely to jack up the immune system than most vaccines.
nojito(2)
> But I think "don't use version 1.0" advice applies here just like it does for software.
No it doesn’t, because vaccine development is more like bridge building than software development.
No it doesn’t, because vaccine development is more like bridge building than software development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)
It was fine... until it wasn't (four months later). Anyway, this analogy is silly. Neither software nor bridges is exactly like the human body and the myriad of complex interactions that happen within.
At the end of the day, all I'm saying is that A. under normal circumstances, it takes a lot of time to get a vaccine tested and approved - for good reason. And B. these are not ordinary circumstances, there may be reason to think the process was rushed, and it may be prudent to not rush to be among the first to take the vaccine.
And just in case anybody misunderstands what I'm saying, let me reiterate as clearly as I can:
This is NOT an anti-vax screed, or an appeal to any conspiracy theories, or anything of that nature. And I am NOT suggesting anyone refuse to get vaccinated in the long-term. I am only suggesting a certain measure of patience, which is probably going to be part of the process anyway due to the logistics of distributing the vaccine.
It was fine... until it wasn't (four months later). Anyway, this analogy is silly. Neither software nor bridges is exactly like the human body and the myriad of complex interactions that happen within.
At the end of the day, all I'm saying is that A. under normal circumstances, it takes a lot of time to get a vaccine tested and approved - for good reason. And B. these are not ordinary circumstances, there may be reason to think the process was rushed, and it may be prudent to not rush to be among the first to take the vaccine.
And just in case anybody misunderstands what I'm saying, let me reiterate as clearly as I can:
This is NOT an anti-vax screed, or an appeal to any conspiracy theories, or anything of that nature. And I am NOT suggesting anyone refuse to get vaccinated in the long-term. I am only suggesting a certain measure of patience, which is probably going to be part of the process anyway due to the logistics of distributing the vaccine.
As a somewhat nit, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was known to have issues before construction was even finished although, obviously, it wasn't expected to fall down.
From your reference: "The original bridge received its nickname "Galloping Gertie" because of the vertical movement of the deck observed by construction workers during windy conditions. The bridge became known for its pitching deck, and collapsed into Puget Sound the morning of November 7, 1940, under high wind conditions. "
From your reference: "The original bridge received its nickname "Galloping Gertie" because of the vertical movement of the deck observed by construction workers during windy conditions. The bridge became known for its pitching deck, and collapsed into Puget Sound the morning of November 7, 1940, under high wind conditions. "
You’re suggesting that people prioritize decisions based on individual uncertainty over decisions based on public good. That the logistics of distribution will result in the same outcome as your suggestion does not mitigate the perceived selfishness of your suggestion.
That the logistics of distribution will result in the same outcome as your suggestion does not mitigate the perceived selfishness of your suggestion.
I could not care less about anyone's opinion of my "perceived selfishness".
I could not care less about anyone's opinion of my "perceived selfishness".
> You’re suggesting that people prioritize decisions based on individual uncertainty over decisions based on public good.
this is a simplistic and somewhat naive take. the decision to approve and distribute a covid vaccine is not going to be based solely on "public good". a vaccine has immense economic and political significance. it's not unreasonable to wonder how that might affect the approval process.
this is a simplistic and somewhat naive take. the decision to approve and distribute a covid vaccine is not going to be based solely on "public good". a vaccine has immense economic and political significance. it's not unreasonable to wonder how that might affect the approval process.
Can you pull out the threads on that argument a little? Taken at face value, it's not meaningful. Bridges launch with huge, sometimes catastrophic problems.
And that's exactly the point. Once it launches it either crashed down or stays up. As for this vaccine it got 30k tests. It's the equivalent of before launching said bridge the entire heavy machinery of the construction company stood on it and didn't collapsed.
The Italian bridge that collapsed after decades because of faulty assumptions about the concrete involved is a more accurate comparison. Assuming we know more than we do, and thinking it has no serious side effects because non have appeared in the first few months is not logically consistent.
That’s fine, as long as you don’t expect other people to limit their lives in lockdowns because of your choices.
Few key facts:
• In the entire history of vaccines, only one has been recalled because the vaccine itself caused long term side effects (a rotavirus vaccine that had rare complications and no deaths for those under 1yr). If you can't find any papers about it, that's why. It's like finding a paper on death by lava lamp explosions. It's happened (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-dec-01-na-brief....), but not enough to study it.
• Much of the speed was gained by relaxing enrollment rules, which are for study participant safety. The majority of normal study participants join in the last year or two anyways.
• These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time. 30,000 people is a lot, and plenty to check for rare side effects.
• Then compare the odds that there's a common reaction that didn't show up in 30,000 participants against the ~5-10% chance of serious health complications from COVID. It's a no-brainer.
You can read the list of recalled vaccines and why they were recalled straight from the FDA (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....).
• In the entire history of vaccines, only one has been recalled because the vaccine itself caused long term side effects (a rotavirus vaccine that had rare complications and no deaths for those under 1yr). If you can't find any papers about it, that's why. It's like finding a paper on death by lava lamp explosions. It's happened (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-dec-01-na-brief....), but not enough to study it.
• Much of the speed was gained by relaxing enrollment rules, which are for study participant safety. The majority of normal study participants join in the last year or two anyways.
• These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time. 30,000 people is a lot, and plenty to check for rare side effects.
• Then compare the odds that there's a common reaction that didn't show up in 30,000 participants against the ~5-10% chance of serious health complications from COVID. It's a no-brainer.
You can read the list of recalled vaccines and why they were recalled straight from the FDA (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....).
> These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time
Larger studies don't make up for decreased time in either identifying long term effectiveness or identifying delayed effects.
Larger studies don't make up for decreased time in either identifying long term effectiveness or identifying delayed effects.
>You can read the list of recalled vaccines and why they were recalled straight from the FDA (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....).
To be fair, it's really hard to compare this to anything that has existed before. mRNA vaccines are a whole new class of drugs that have never been approved for human use. This will be a world first when Pfizer gets the EUA next month.
To be fair, it's really hard to compare this to anything that has existed before. mRNA vaccines are a whole new class of drugs that have never been approved for human use. This will be a world first when Pfizer gets the EUA next month.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer in any shape or form but I have found a major flaw in our medical system through my own struggles. I was given a flouroquinolone antibiotic about 8 years ago and it really had a huge negative impact on my health. It resulted in chronic pain and some neurological issues. Neurological issues where instant, but pain took a few months to start. Even though the current research and drug information align with most of my symptoms doctors refuse to even entertain the idea. I have been to Mayo, Rush, Northshore, etc. Out of 40+ doctors one confirmed it and 2nd agrees it is possible.
I have met numerous people over the year receiving diagnosis of fibro, CFS, tendonitis without any reports from doctors to the FDA. Most negative reports are made by patients who researched it. This is extremely dangerous. I have met pharmacist who suffered from the same problems but still their colleagues would label them crazy.
I will let others test the vaccine in the real world before taking it myself.
I have met numerous people over the year receiving diagnosis of fibro, CFS, tendonitis without any reports from doctors to the FDA. Most negative reports are made by patients who researched it. This is extremely dangerous. I have met pharmacist who suffered from the same problems but still their colleagues would label them crazy.
I will let others test the vaccine in the real world before taking it myself.
[deleted]
Don't worry to much, you will not be able to get your hands on a vaccine for quite a while even if you wanted it. By the time this will be available for regular people like you and me, millions of frontline healthcare workers and emergency personnel will have gotten it.
On a risk basis, it’s clearly better to get the shot than COVID. But you aren’t wrong in you belief the vaccine may have unknown side effects. The trails were not powered to find the 1 in 10000 side effects that pop up. We won’t know those for months.
Not that you’ll be able to get the vaccine for months anyway, unless you work in healthcare.
Not that you’ll be able to get the vaccine for months anyway, unless you work in healthcare.
The real ques is: What % of the population are willing to be the "early adopters"? I wonder how things will develop in countries where that % is less than 5.
Do you think private companies will require vaccination to return to work?
*Here is an article I found on the subject. Essentially stating in general employers could require vaccination. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/26/coronavirus-...
*Here is an article I found on the subject. Essentially stating in general employers could require vaccination. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/26/coronavirus-...
I hope so. I would be upset if I got the vaccine and people who didn't have it were allowed to work near me, but I would just keep WFH. I would be outraged if I were forced to work with them
Why would you be upset for? It's their life, not yours. Once you get vaccinated, ideally, you get immune to the virus. You neither can develop the disease nor spread it. It's the same as saying you don't want to work with people who didn't got vaccinated by any other number of vaccines (let you search wiki for full list as exercise) and I'm pretty sure it already happened.
> It's their life, not yours
This attitude is why the pandemic rages on with such intensity in so many places
This attitude is why the pandemic rages on with such intensity in so many places
Because I don't want to be around people with a disease that's serious enough to shut down our society, if I am only 95% resistant to it
The 95% effective figure refers to the percentage of people who develop full immunity, not how resistant an individual is. A more accurate way of phrasing that would be "[...] if I only have a 95% chance of immunity".
I don't mean to split hairs; the distinction is important.
I don't mean to split hairs; the distinction is important.
Because it is only 95% effective. If everyone around me is also vaccinated it is likely that even if my vaccine doesn't work I'm still protected. This is what herd immunity is about.
Note that we don't know if vaccinated people can spread covid or not. It seems unlikely, but if it turns out being vaccinated means you become a non-symptomatic super spreader I reserve the right to change my stance based on that information.
Note that we don't know if vaccinated people can spread covid or not. It seems unlikely, but if it turns out being vaccinated means you become a non-symptomatic super spreader I reserve the right to change my stance based on that information.
The 95% effective is not a cliff function. The 5% that ‘get it’ have mild symptoms. We won’t know how effective it at preventing serious disease until millions have been inoculated, but it will likely be 99%+ effective with that outcome.
We know that in one of the trials one of the serious cases was in the intervention group. We will of course need a lot more data to figure out what the real reduction in rate of serious events is.
>It's their life, not yours
It's a lot of people's lives, not just theirs. Like with most vaccines, there'll be a fraction of the population who cannot safely get vaccinated. We need to think of this from a public health perspective: more unvaccinated people in spreading-prone situations means more risk to others (including those beyond the immediate situation) and more burden on health systems.
It's a lot of people's lives, not just theirs. Like with most vaccines, there'll be a fraction of the population who cannot safely get vaccinated. We need to think of this from a public health perspective: more unvaccinated people in spreading-prone situations means more risk to others (including those beyond the immediate situation) and more burden on health systems.
Dude, read my point again. I was asking why would he get upset if is his colleagues decide not to vaccinate. Not anything else.
isn't in insane how over the last few months people just assume their fellow man is a murderer for BREATHING?
this virus is causing more insanity than health effects.
this virus is causing more insanity than health effects.
* the vaccine is not 100% effective
* we don’t yet know whether the vaccine prevents transmission. You can probably be a carrier and spreader even if vaccinated
Those two facts alone mean we’re going to be wearing masks for quite some time, things won’t go back to normal for a while, and people are justified in being upset with others who refuse to protect everyone around them.
* we don’t yet know whether the vaccine prevents transmission. You can probably be a carrier and spreader even if vaccinated
Those two facts alone mean we’re going to be wearing masks for quite some time, things won’t go back to normal for a while, and people are justified in being upset with others who refuse to protect everyone around them.
If we don’t even know a basic facts about the vaccine (whether people vaccinated can still transmit, how long it lasts), isn’t it natural for people too feel concerned about what else we don’t know ?
Seems to be a few unknowns still ?
Seems to be a few unknowns still ?
It’s natural for people to want perfect certainty before making health care decisions. That’s why public health policy exists: because there is never perfect certainty in vaccination, and yet we’ll be required to all the same.
You really missed my point. Read again my above comment.
I think it will depend on the political climate of the particular workspace.
I fully expect that once it is widely available (major caveat), many workplaces and schools will require it absent medical exceptions. Certainly, most schools require vaccinations today and I don't expect there will be a lot of sympathy for those that want to hold off.
I don’t think voluntary exceptions will be granted for Covid, and I’m hard-pressed to come up with a case where an involuntary medical exception would be necessary for someone that is mobile. (No doubt a one in a billion case exists, of course.)
Immunocompomised people can be mobile and still lack the defenses necessary to tolerate a vaccine. I know one personally; he jogs by my house every evening, but by his own estimation, a flu vaccine would almost certainly land him in the hospital.
Pregnancy is one. It wasn't tested on them.
Allergies to one of the components? Raw egg allergies can preclude some vaccinations.
Neither vaccine under consideration today uses eggs or triggers the egg allergies that the most common influenza vaccines can. The general population degree of allergic reactions to vaccines is 1-2 people per million, with hives as the most common outcome; or between 1500 and 3000 people across the United States in a 100% vaccination scenario, of which many would get hives and no worse.
Egg allergies trigger careful treatment protocols surrounding many influenza vaccines, but do not in any way preclude vaccination or exempt one from it. Specifically, if your allergic reaction to eggs is severe enough to impair breathing, delivery of the vaccine must be delivered in a monitored medical setting that can treat you if an allergic reaction that impairs your breathing. You are only precluded from receiving an egg-based vaccination once you have experienced a severe reaction from an egg-based vaccine. Egg allergy alone is not sufficient.
Egg allergies trigger careful treatment protocols surrounding many influenza vaccines, but do not in any way preclude vaccination or exempt one from it. Specifically, if your allergic reaction to eggs is severe enough to impair breathing, delivery of the vaccine must be delivered in a monitored medical setting that can treat you if an allergic reaction that impairs your breathing. You are only precluded from receiving an egg-based vaccination once you have experienced a severe reaction from an egg-based vaccine. Egg allergy alone is not sufficient.
I expect that state school systems will mostly apply their existing laws for required vaccines. (which is that 4 or 5 of them actually require them, and the rest give religious and/or philosophical exemptions)
But for the vast majority of workplaces, there's not much of an existing precedent to do this, and I suspect the vast majority of employers will not want to rock the boat too much. I suspect it'll be something that will be "required" by policies but not enforced in practice. The people who want to get vaccines will get them, and those who do not will ignore the policy without repercussions.
But for the vast majority of workplaces, there's not much of an existing precedent to do this, and I suspect the vast majority of employers will not want to rock the boat too much. I suspect it'll be something that will be "required" by policies but not enforced in practice. The people who want to get vaccines will get them, and those who do not will ignore the policy without repercussions.
>will be "required" by policies but not enforced in practice
That would seem to be extremely unethical and possibly at least borderline an OSHA violation. If a workplace is claiming that certain procedures are being followed and they are in fact not being followed, I think plenty of lawyers would be happy to take that lawsuit.
That would seem to be extremely unethical and possibly at least borderline an OSHA violation. If a workplace is claiming that certain procedures are being followed and they are in fact not being followed, I think plenty of lawyers would be happy to take that lawsuit.
I didn't necessarily mean that they would be breaking procedure -- I think it's more likely that the procedures won't be very rigorous. I doubt that procedures for vaccination will be any more rigorous than the procedures for ensuring compliance with mask wearing.
As far as this being unethical -- maybe it is -- but since when has that stopped anyone? There are people still being forced to go to work sick because they have no way to take sick leave without losing their jobs.
As far as this being unethical -- maybe it is -- but since when has that stopped anyone? There are people still being forced to go to work sick because they have no way to take sick leave without losing their jobs.
Dunno. Larger companies I'm familiar with have pretty rigorous back to the office procedures which I could see extending to proof-of-vaccination at some point. Without it, they could just not enable badge access. But, as you say, uncharted territory.
I think, at best, we'll see a situation similar to the requirements that state schools have for enrollment. All 50 states "require" kids to be vaccinated.... but 48 states have religious exemptions.
At the end of the day, it's a lot less risk to HR to not piss off a couple of politically fringe employees over something that the vast majority of employees will do voluntarily anyway, without any coercing. Two unvaccinated employees out of hundreds probably won't cause a problematic COVID outbreak, but they could file a lawsuit.
At the end of the day, it's a lot less risk to HR to not piss off a couple of politically fringe employees over something that the vast majority of employees will do voluntarily anyway, without any coercing. Two unvaccinated employees out of hundreds probably won't cause a problematic COVID outbreak, but they could file a lawsuit.
Most schools require vaccines which have been in circulation for a long long time and presumably whose long term risks are well understood. I think it would be pretty stupid to force mass vaccinate such a rushed vaccine, don't you think?
A lot less stupid than continuing with "distance learning".
You and I have very different definitions of stupid. Requiring an entire country to go whole hog on something with zero real understanding of long term effects is my definition of stupid. When is that ever the wise thing to do?
When the other choice is a demonstrably inferior learning environment, economic ruin, and a major public health hazard that has already killed just shy of 250k people in just over 9 months.
So vaccinate those at serious risk who we were closing things down for in anticipation of the vaccine. When the serious at risk people are no longer seriously at risk then there is no need for all the shutdowns. No need to vaccinate everyone is there?
I don't think that's how vaccines generally work. The virus won't actually disappear, it'll continue to be spread among the unvaccinated, and eventually people not at risk become at risk due to changes in life circumstances.
I'm also not sure there's quite the bright line you seem to be suggesting between "at risk" and "not at risk." Young health people still die of COVID-19, just not at as high a rate as already-unhealthy or older people.
I'm also not sure there's quite the bright line you seem to be suggesting between "at risk" and "not at risk." Young health people still die of COVID-19, just not at as high a rate as already-unhealthy or older people.
I actually don't think the federal government has the power to require it. However, private companies and schools can impose whatever safety requirements they feel prudent for their employees, customers, and students. Which may of course make life difficult for those who don't want to go along.
State governments probably have the power to require it.
You may be right although I have a hard time seeing that happening politically. IANAL, but the relevant case law seems to be Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) upholding mandatory smallpox vaccinations which AFAIK has never been superseded. [1] That said, the US Supreme Court also upheld a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of “feeble minded” persons in state institutions in 1927. It's hard to imagine similar laws passing muster today, probably for 14th Amendment reasons.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/
The US federal government can require it by passing laws if they see fit to do so. Presumably the states with the highest Covid infection rates would fight it in court on some constitutional basis to avoid vaccination, and some armed citizens would kill medical personnel enforcing the federal directive, but none of that prohibits the laws from being passed.
Isn’t that kind of what we have done with distance learning?
It was the wise thing to do for the polio vaccine.
The risk profile for all the age groups is wildly different. I don't think its a bad idea for people > age X to get this vaccine, one because they have a much higher risk of serious harm from corona _AND_ perhaps less risk of long term affects. But for someone who has very low risk of serious harm from corona, perhaps it makes sense to wait a little bit?
Depends on what you mean by "a little bit." My understanding is that general availability isn't expected until probably April of 2021, by which point health care workers and other high risk groups of people will have had the vaccine for five months, and the trial participants for six months.
Isn’t this exactly how “I Am Legend” starts; just about to the T?
We shouldn't be using fiction to inform anything about our actions in real life.
Not sure about the book as I haven’t read it, but in the movie they modify the measles virus to fight cancer.
This will save lives. However I imagine most people will end up getting the Oxford vaccine, that doesn't have the storage requirements or need a second dose and is a fraction of the cost.
I believe the Oxford vaccine does require a booster. It’s the J&J that is single shot.
Wondering how they determine which need a booster and which don't. Is this based on phase one data or more of an educated guess?
Phase 1 &2 data. 1 is mostly safety checks, but it involves several dosing profiles (typically starting low) to get a safety profile. 2 tests dose response and more detailed safety. 3 tests efficacy using the dose profile determined by phase 2.
Doesn't the Oxford one also has a few medium side effects? Headaches etc?
[deleted]
Well, I wouldn't be so happy.
Think about it. Out of million people only small percentage would become infected with covid and of that, only small percentage would die.
On the other hand, vaccine must be distributed to everybody. Alternatively to people who, by occupation, have to contact many other people, daily.
We don't know yet if there are complications from the vaccine. It is not possible to judge long term effects of anything based on very short exposure.
The value of vaccine is in preventing future infections, but for a given person now it is not yet know if the vaccine is actually a good deal or not. Only time will tell.
Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision.
Think about it. Out of million people only small percentage would become infected with covid and of that, only small percentage would die.
On the other hand, vaccine must be distributed to everybody. Alternatively to people who, by occupation, have to contact many other people, daily.
We don't know yet if there are complications from the vaccine. It is not possible to judge long term effects of anything based on very short exposure.
The value of vaccine is in preventing future infections, but for a given person now it is not yet know if the vaccine is actually a good deal or not. Only time will tell.
Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision.
Others have pointed out the misinformation in your comment, but even if you believed this, why talk about it? This is the type of idea you should probably keep to yourself (as it’s in your own best interest for it to not spread).
As much as OP's comment is wacko crazy, it's in everyone's best interest if people speak honestly. This whole white-lie-in-the-public-interest never turns out well. If there was one reason attributable to the USSR's downfall, it's this attitude. Because socialism was better, it was okay to lie in its defense, and this lead to the equivalent of hyperinflation on both the corruption and the truthiness fronts.
The rapid growth of racism in blue states comes back to this attitude. If people can't speak freely, when they have false beliefs, they keep them to themselves, and you can't address them. The sorts of blue state beliefs about minorities are just wacko at this point.
People should be free to speak.
No, I don't agree with OP, but this whole "why talk about it?" thing is an issue. You talk about things together, critically to come to a common understanding of the truth. That has a lot of value in itself. It's not all about impact of words, and how you can politick the change you want in the world. Society works better when people speak openly, even when those words are false and harmful, and when people can be confronted on that, not with cancel culture, but critically, logically, and civilly.
We've worked ourselves into a corner where we can't do that anymore.
The rapid growth of racism in blue states comes back to this attitude. If people can't speak freely, when they have false beliefs, they keep them to themselves, and you can't address them. The sorts of blue state beliefs about minorities are just wacko at this point.
People should be free to speak.
No, I don't agree with OP, but this whole "why talk about it?" thing is an issue. You talk about things together, critically to come to a common understanding of the truth. That has a lot of value in itself. It's not all about impact of words, and how you can politick the change you want in the world. Society works better when people speak openly, even when those words are false and harmful, and when people can be confronted on that, not with cancel culture, but critically, logically, and civilly.
We've worked ourselves into a corner where we can't do that anymore.
Agree that it's best for society if we don't shame people for voicing their beliefs, and that wasn't my intent.
I actually think OC made a valid point - that is, there is an extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects, and therefore, if every individual were to act independetly according to their own self-interest, they would avoid the vaccine. This is true for all vaccines, and reminds me of the tragedy of the commons.
I'm actually curious, though, why the OC wants to discuss this. There is truth to his comment, but if you aren't willing to be a team player, there's no good in recruiting others to your way of thinking.
I actually think OC made a valid point - that is, there is an extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects, and therefore, if every individual were to act independetly according to their own self-interest, they would avoid the vaccine. This is true for all vaccines, and reminds me of the tragedy of the commons.
I'm actually curious, though, why the OC wants to discuss this. There is truth to his comment, but if you aren't willing to be a team player, there's no good in recruiting others to your way of thinking.
Sort of. It's a quantitative argument, and that's not how the numbers work out. In the US, about 1 in 30 people have had a reasonably confirmed case of COVID (10 million out of a bit over 300 million). The odds of being exposed to it are significant at this point, unless you're locked up in a bunker in the mountains.
If you do catch it, the risks of long-term disability are pretty high too. We don't know a lot about long COVID, but the known numbers on long COVID there are concerning.
1) Vaccines are 95% effective.
2) We didn't see any side effects in 30k person studies.
It's hard to run numbers where the "extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects" are greater than p(catching COVID) * p(long COVID).
There was a tragedy of the commons when there were a few dozens confirmed cases of COVID. There was virtually no individual risk to going out and partying, and if everyone did that, it would double in 5 days. Everyone went out and parties until the personal risks were high, and the collective costs of those decisions were huge.
In this case, though, we're comparing the risks of an engineered and rigorously tested vaccine against those of a relatively poorly understood new virus. I can't work any sensible numbers where it doesn't make sense to take the vaccine from that argument.
The only place where I could run reasonable numbers for a reason to wait is:
1) If you can afford to 100% quarantine at home
2) You want to pick between vaccines, waiting for a better one
If you do catch it, the risks of long-term disability are pretty high too. We don't know a lot about long COVID, but the known numbers on long COVID there are concerning.
1) Vaccines are 95% effective.
2) We didn't see any side effects in 30k person studies.
It's hard to run numbers where the "extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects" are greater than p(catching COVID) * p(long COVID).
There was a tragedy of the commons when there were a few dozens confirmed cases of COVID. There was virtually no individual risk to going out and partying, and if everyone did that, it would double in 5 days. Everyone went out and parties until the personal risks were high, and the collective costs of those decisions were huge.
In this case, though, we're comparing the risks of an engineered and rigorously tested vaccine against those of a relatively poorly understood new virus. I can't work any sensible numbers where it doesn't make sense to take the vaccine from that argument.
The only place where I could run reasonable numbers for a reason to wait is:
1) If you can afford to 100% quarantine at home
2) You want to pick between vaccines, waiting for a better one
I take issue with this assumption "Think about it. Out of million people only small percentage would become infected with covid and of that, only small percentage would die." The virus is very contagions eventually most people will get infected, not a small percentage. The death rate is nominally low, but a 1% chance of dying is still a lot to me. Also the chances of getting long term side effects or just having a very bad illness are much higher.
Is there an example of a vaccine in history that produced no initial side effects but only very long term side effects (ie. several years later)?
I haven't seen that, but I'd be careful to draw the meaningfulness of that metric, as there has also never been an mRNA vaccine deployed until this year.
That said, the large size of these studies should be extremely comforting to people.
That said, the large size of these studies should be extremely comforting to people.
What I don’t find comforting is the fact that companies have not had approval (or even applied) for approval for a mRNA based vaccine until now. Even though they’ve had many years to do so.
I know nothing about vaccines or medicine really, but I just find it hard to believe that it’s just luck that we’re all going to be taking one in under a year when there hasn’t been much push for approval before this ?
Hopefully we’re not going to be pressured to be inoculated with something, anything that works, because of desperation and because managing the situation in an adult way was too hard for most world leaders.
As others have said, if you’re not in a high risk group, maybe some skepticism is warranted?
I know nothing about vaccines or medicine really, but I just find it hard to believe that it’s just luck that we’re all going to be taking one in under a year when there hasn’t been much push for approval before this ?
Hopefully we’re not going to be pressured to be inoculated with something, anything that works, because of desperation and because managing the situation in an adult way was too hard for most world leaders.
As others have said, if you’re not in a high risk group, maybe some skepticism is warranted?
2009-2010 GSK H1N1 - settled by the gov of multiple EU countries
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...
> In 2018, a study team including CDC scientists analyzed and published vaccine safety data on adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines (arenaprix-AS03, Focetria-MF59, and Pandemrix-AS03) from 10 global study sites. Researchers did not detect any associations between the vaccines and narcolepsy.
tbh I had the vaccine back then and am still fine(or I'm dreaming right now). That doesn't mean I'm for or against this new vaccine. I'll draw my conclusion when I see enough data. At the end of the day it's my choice if I do it or not since if you take the jab you should be safe either way.
That being said: shutting down discourse I'm always against. Dumb or not everyone should be able to have their say as long as they don't preach violence in any way.
That being said: shutting down discourse I'm always against. Dumb or not everyone should be able to have their say as long as they don't preach violence in any way.
With respect to the last paragraph, vaccination is a sticky topic, because the vaccine protects both you and those around you.
Vaccines are not 100% effective, don't convey permanent immunity, and not everyone can be vaccinated due to various health restrictions. As a result, if you voluntarily choose not to be immunized when you could otherwise have been, you are voluntarily exposing some people you come into contact with to potential harm.
It's up to you whether that falls within your definition of "violence", but some would say so.
Vaccines are not 100% effective, don't convey permanent immunity, and not everyone can be vaccinated due to various health restrictions. As a result, if you voluntarily choose not to be immunized when you could otherwise have been, you are voluntarily exposing some people you come into contact with to potential harm.
It's up to you whether that falls within your definition of "violence", but some would say so.
Putting aside the deplorable ethics of freeloading in this matter, I think your analysis of the situation is objectively problematical.
It is not plausible that, absent a vaccine or other cure, only a small percentage will contract it. The evidence strongly suggests that a large fraction of the population will end up catching it at some point.
We already have plenty of evidence how that goes, in the chicken-pox outbreaks in the communities that have chosen not vaccinate, presenting a threat both to themselves and others. This virus is known to be much more dangerous.
You seem to weigh your hypothetical problems of a vaccine much more heavily than the actual problems of the virus.
It is not plausible that, absent a vaccine or other cure, only a small percentage will contract it. The evidence strongly suggests that a large fraction of the population will end up catching it at some point.
We already have plenty of evidence how that goes, in the chicken-pox outbreaks in the communities that have chosen not vaccinate, presenting a threat both to themselves and others. This virus is known to be much more dangerous.
You seem to weigh your hypothetical problems of a vaccine much more heavily than the actual problems of the virus.
[deleted]
> We don't know yet if there are complications from the vaccine. It is not possible to judge long term effects of anything based on very short exposure
...
> Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision
There are two different ways a medicine might have long term unintended and currently unknown effects.
1. It does some kind of permanent damage to you fairly immediately after taking it that takes a long time to show noticeable effects, or
2. It does some some kind of damage that is not permanent and won't lead to any long term noticeable effects as long as the original damage is allowed to heal or at least not made worse.
Category two is what you have to worry about with things you have to take regularly, because they can accumulate the damage or risk and it can take many years before it accumulates to the point that we might notice.
Because this is a not a "take every year" kind of vaccine, I don't think there is much need to worry about category two.
With "take it once" types of medicine (yes, I know some vaccines require more than one dose over a week or two, which counts as taking it once when considering long term effects), with wide deployment, I'd expect any unintended and unknown long term side effects to start being found within maybe a year of wide deployment.
...
> Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision
There are two different ways a medicine might have long term unintended and currently unknown effects.
1. It does some kind of permanent damage to you fairly immediately after taking it that takes a long time to show noticeable effects, or
2. It does some some kind of damage that is not permanent and won't lead to any long term noticeable effects as long as the original damage is allowed to heal or at least not made worse.
Category two is what you have to worry about with things you have to take regularly, because they can accumulate the damage or risk and it can take many years before it accumulates to the point that we might notice.
Because this is a not a "take every year" kind of vaccine, I don't think there is much need to worry about category two.
With "take it once" types of medicine (yes, I know some vaccines require more than one dose over a week or two, which counts as taking it once when considering long term effects), with wide deployment, I'd expect any unintended and unknown long term side effects to start being found within maybe a year of wide deployment.
3. It does something that is not immediately apparent but develops into a terrible illness/problem year/s later.
If it caused cancer, or auto an autoimmune disease, its likely these wouldn't be apparent for months or years. This is unlikely, but possible, and we could not test for this thoroughly as we didn't have the time.
I also remind you that these companies are immune from lawsuits due to the indemnity clause in their contracts.
If it caused cancer, or auto an autoimmune disease, its likely these wouldn't be apparent for months or years. This is unlikely, but possible, and we could not test for this thoroughly as we didn't have the time.
I also remind you that these companies are immune from lawsuits due to the indemnity clause in their contracts.
Isn't it a bit early to say it's not a take once a year vaccine? Afaik we don't even know if getting covid makes you immune to covid longterm, we definitely don't have the long term info on these vaccines yet.
There is some recent research indicating it produces the kind of immune response that provides long term protection [1], at least if you get a strong initial response. Here's an article about that research [2].
There have been some people who have been reinfected with it, but I saw another recent article about this latest research that talked a bit about those cases. It said that they are believe to be people who did not have a strong immune response the first time. The vaccines should produce a strong response.
[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/27/scie...
[2] https://www.darkdaily.com/mount-sinai-researchers-find-that-...
There have been some people who have been reinfected with it, but I saw another recent article about this latest research that talked a bit about those cases. It said that they are believe to be people who did not have a strong immune response the first time. The vaccines should produce a strong response.
[1] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/10/27/scie...
[2] https://www.darkdaily.com/mount-sinai-researchers-find-that-...
There is truth to your comment, but don't expect people to validate your idea.
It's in our best collective interest for everyone to take this vaccine even if there's a 0.01% chance it has negative side effects.
Even on an individual level, the cost-benefit of taking the vaccine is a no-brainer. Even if there's a 0.01% chance of negative side effects, the individual benefit of re-opening society far outweighs that risk.
It's true you can freeload and reap the benefits without the small risk, but if everyone thinks this way, there are no benefits to go around. Can't you just be a team player?
To put things in perspective, a 0.01% risk is like going skydiving once, or getting out of bed and doing your usual routine for a week.
It goes without saying that if the general public doesn't get vaccinated, you should definitely get vaccinated because the risk of catching COVID is worse than the risk of this vaccine.
It's in our best collective interest for everyone to take this vaccine even if there's a 0.01% chance it has negative side effects.
Even on an individual level, the cost-benefit of taking the vaccine is a no-brainer. Even if there's a 0.01% chance of negative side effects, the individual benefit of re-opening society far outweighs that risk.
It's true you can freeload and reap the benefits without the small risk, but if everyone thinks this way, there are no benefits to go around. Can't you just be a team player?
To put things in perspective, a 0.01% risk is like going skydiving once, or getting out of bed and doing your usual routine for a week.
It goes without saying that if the general public doesn't get vaccinated, you should definitely get vaccinated because the risk of catching COVID is worse than the risk of this vaccine.
Being a coder and not a biologist, I asked a friend who regularly works with drug companies on FDA approval. I asked what the risks could be of a vaccine that was “rushed” through. In his opinion, there was virtually no risk of the vaccine actively causing harm. The biggest risk is giving people a vaccine they think is effective but isn’t and they contract the virus.
What was rushed through? The messaging from my government (not US) has been that approval process rules have not been changed.
From the article:
> for Emergency Use Authorization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_use_authorization
> authorizes FDA to facilitate availability of an unapproved product, or an unapproved use of an approved product, during a declared state of emergency from one of several agencies or of a "material threat" by the Secretary of Homeland Security
Rushed, yes, but via an existing set of rules for this sort of scenario. It's an appropriate use of this sort of process, but it does come with some risks.
> for Emergency Use Authorization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_use_authorization
> authorizes FDA to facilitate availability of an unapproved product, or an unapproved use of an approved product, during a declared state of emergency from one of several agencies or of a "material threat" by the Secretary of Homeland Security
Rushed, yes, but via an existing set of rules for this sort of scenario. It's an appropriate use of this sort of process, but it does come with some risks.
Wasn’t Remdesivir also given emergency approval and is now to be avoided ?
In the sense that it's not as helpful as initially thought, not that it's actively dangerous.
It's to be avoided because it doesn't seem to help, but it hasn't been shown to be harmful. Important distinction.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/who-recommends-aga...
But of course, FDA has been pressured by Trump so perhaps you can look at what other health agencies that don't have a despot screaming at them do with the vaccine.
But of course, FDA has been pressured by Trump so perhaps you can look at what other health agencies that don't have a despot screaming at them do with the vaccine.
This, there's been so much lying and distrust lately I think this is why vaccine news is treated with some skepticism and not with joy.
iakh(2)
I wonder how long it'll be before third world countries get the vaccine
WHO has a fund specifically for vaccines for developing countries, I can't find the latest total, but it's in the hundreds of millions.
A good portion of the WHO is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. Imagine contributing billions towards world health and then somehow you are painted as the villain by insane people like Q, Russian propaganda and anti-Vaxx organizations.
Did they publish the mRNA code?
[deleted]
Isn’t it pretty easy to sequence anyways? Assuming you can get a hold of a vaccine sample.
Probably, but why bother. If you have the ability to do that, you also have the Covid DNA sequence, and probably the ability to make your own mRNA vaccine. The only thing your vaccine would be lacking is the safety trials which you probably also have the ability to run, and you have already started them (if you haven't why not, and why would you care to start now).
There is the possibility that you have the ability to manufacture mRNA in your factory but didn't have the idea to start making your own vaccine until late enough that it wasn't worth trying to make your own. In this case you may want to talk to Pfizer about licensing their (but you have probably been in those talks for months and are just waiting for the right time to publicly announce the deal with production already started)
There is the possibility that you have the ability to manufacture mRNA in your factory but didn't have the idea to start making your own vaccine until late enough that it wasn't worth trying to make your own. In this case you may want to talk to Pfizer about licensing their (but you have probably been in those talks for months and are just waiting for the right time to publicly announce the deal with production already started)
If it’s patented the sequence would need to be public.
Thanks to Operation Warp Speed, the first 100m doses are paid for in the US, and at no cost.
https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-sp...
https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-sp...
Yeah, this is one of those places where Congress (providing funding) and the administration (providing leadership) and the private sector (doing the actual work) were able to work together.
I wish there were more examples of this type of thing. One area an effort like this is badly needed is for at-home rapid testing.
I wish there were more examples of this type of thing. One area an effort like this is badly needed is for at-home rapid testing.
A lot of the "actual work" includes distribution, which the govt is handling through military.
Yours isn't an accurate picture of how the vaccine will be distributed. State and local governments are involved, health agencies in the federal government is involved. But private companies play the main role here, too: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/14/trump-administrati... As I understand it, the role of the military is mostly in planning logistics:
Army Gen. Gustave F. Perna (who is the four-star general who is COO of Operation Warp Speed): “There will not be this vision that some have that there will be Army trucks driving through the streets delivering vaccines. The commercial industry knows how to do it.”
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dod-planning-every-logisti...
So yeah, I think my summary -- that administration is playing a "leadership" role -- is quite right here, too.
I think a better point would be to praise the work done by NIAID and others. Obviously I wasn't diminishing the role of these fantastic scientists, or the role of people like Dr. Fauci, only highlighting that this vaccine was developed in the private sector (with roles played at every level of government).
Army Gen. Gustave F. Perna (who is the four-star general who is COO of Operation Warp Speed): “There will not be this vision that some have that there will be Army trucks driving through the streets delivering vaccines. The commercial industry knows how to do it.”
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dod-planning-every-logisti...
So yeah, I think my summary -- that administration is playing a "leadership" role -- is quite right here, too.
I think a better point would be to praise the work done by NIAID and others. Obviously I wasn't diminishing the role of these fantastic scientists, or the role of people like Dr. Fauci, only highlighting that this vaccine was developed in the private sector (with roles played at every level of government).
Thanks, I definitely misunderstood what was happening here.
No direct consumer-facing cost.
> HHS announced up to $1.95 billion in funds to Pfizer for the large-scale manufacturing and nationwide distribution of 100 million doses of their vaccine candidate.
It's a sensible use of taxpayer funds, for sure, but Pfizer isn't doing it as a charitable work.
> HHS announced up to $1.95 billion in funds to Pfizer for the large-scale manufacturing and nationwide distribution of 100 million doses of their vaccine candidate.
It's a sensible use of taxpayer funds, for sure, but Pfizer isn't doing it as a charitable work.
People gotta get paid
I'd go and get it ASAP, so I resume my life. Anti-vaxxers can isolate themselves forever :)
Thanks for doing that. I'll follow right after you (and a bunch of others).
I'm not anti vaxx.
But I totally understand after institution after institution failed us all, that people will be skeptical about a miracle vaccine developed in mere months.
I have faith in the scientists, but anyone can see the incentives are dodgy here.
But I totally understand after institution after institution failed us all, that people will be skeptical about a miracle vaccine developed in mere months.
I have faith in the scientists, but anyone can see the incentives are dodgy here.
Please cite the lengthy list of institutions that have failed us all.
Uhh, points at 2020
The CDC advising people to not buy masks in February because "they don't work" comes to mind. The US Gov in general completely letting businesses and individuals plunge into bankruptcy. I think a lot of people have been awakened to the fact that "the system" is pretty ambivalent to their personal well-being.
Scientists are people to. They don't magically know how a new never before seen virus works, instantly. It takes time to study it. Advice at the beginning are best guesses; some is going to turn out to be wrong. With time and experience, knowledge gets more firm, advice shifts and solidifies.
Exactly. And going by vaccine timelines, we're still at the very beginning, so I don't blame people for being hesitant to get injected with it.
We're hardly at the "beginning". There have been very large trials to establish safety and efficacy. Sure its not like we have years of study, but its hardly the beginning. More like the middle.
How about the German well-known biotech company that actually developed the vaccine that Pfizer is distributing?
Government is incompetent therefore private pharma company vaccines aren't safe. Got it.
You know the private pharma company in question is German, right? Is the German government also responsible for America's high caseload?
I know you're being facetious but unironically yes.
The FAA and its allowing Boeing to "self-certify" the 737-MAX.
I think it's easier to support this concern the older you get. Here's why: as you age, you begin to see documentaries on TV and YouTube that expose widespread government coverup and misinformation operations from the past, (and this is crucial) about episodes through which you lived. The obvious example for me is the nuclear industry. A concrete example: in the 1970s we were told that nuclear power plants were entirely safe because a) they have control rods to stop fission and b) they're safely contained. As an engineering student I would have happily told friends and family these things as received facts. In reality a) post-scram the reactor carries on dissipating megawatts so it will easily melt and b) all sorts of gas and liquid under pressure needs to be vented from the containment system and c) some of those gasses are explosive, so it isn't able to contain. Fukushima nicely illustrated these factors. Iterate this a few times and you end up with this uneasy feeling that nothing you're told with authority can be relied upon. Having gone through the experience of believing something
then discovering it was a lie feels different than someone just telling you that governments and authority figures lie.
Not saying here that one should avoid the vaccine, just that experience shows that a healthy skepticism is warranted. Do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
Not saying here that one should avoid the vaccine, just that experience shows that a healthy skepticism is warranted. Do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
Agree 100%, people underestimate how vicious and cruel supposedly benevolent the wizards of capitalist drug manufacturers can be. Much of our modern pharmaceuticals originate from Nazi organizations like IG Farben, pfizer, bayer, merck... (operation paperclip) all not prosecuted after ww2. Your nuclear example is one I also remind people of as well. As climate change wreaks havoc (something science rationale minded folk believe), somehow they think events like Fukushima will "just be fine", when the reality is that Fukushima will possibly never be contained, and we may have multiple fukushima type events globally if the inability to power and manage them is taken away by circumstances beyond a government or intl agencie's control.
I can remember a time where government surveillance alarmists were dismissed as conspiracy theorists wearing tinfoil hats. Then Snowden released the documents and not only was it true, wide spread surveillance, but it was much deeper than any civilian could have imagined.
UFOs - again, dismissive, denied for decades. And now they've casually released videos from the Navy showing aerial vehicles performing maneuvers that none of our current technology is capable of.
UFOs - again, dismissive, denied for decades. And now they've casually released videos from the Navy showing aerial vehicles performing maneuvers that none of our current technology is capable of.
Me too. I signed up for a trial but wasn't accepted. Vaccines are amazing.
Vaccines are not 100% effective. You should continue to isolate until the virus is gone. If everyone that gets vaccinated immediately starts partying again, that 10% or so for whom the vaccine has no effect will contribute to prolonging the pandemic.
> until the virus is gone
Gotta go kill all those animal carriers and test/innoculate every person in the world (more or less) continuously for some time, then you have a chance. The specific virus will not be eradicated within our grandchildren's lifetime, afaik.
Gotta go kill all those animal carriers and test/innoculate every person in the world (more or less) continuously for some time, then you have a chance. The specific virus will not be eradicated within our grandchildren's lifetime, afaik.
The virus will never be gone.
Life can resume right now. Everyone just needs to wear a mask.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-face-mask-protection-vacc...
https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronav...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-face-mask-protection-vacc...
https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronav...
>"I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because it may be 70%. And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me,"
This is from September before the results of the vaccines were known. The two vaccines we have data on have a ~95% protection rate from getting symptomatic COVID. Additionally, of that 5% of vaccinated folks who did get symptomatic COVID, there cases appear to be much less severe than the control group.
This is from September before the results of the vaccines were known. The two vaccines we have data on have a ~95% protection rate from getting symptomatic COVID. Additionally, of that 5% of vaccinated folks who did get symptomatic COVID, there cases appear to be much less severe than the control group.
That's based on PR statements alone. Unless I missed it, they still haven't released any data.
Some of us never stopped =)
How would one explain to a Facebook addict why they should get the vaccine and that it's not a Bill Gates/NWO conspiracy to sterilise them?
I would start by convincing them to get off of Facebook... the massive improvements to mental health one would see from that step alone would be amazing. In a way, I kinda hope the Section 230 debate does cause FB and Twitter to go dark for a few weeks... we could actually start talking to real humans without a computer in the middle!
Don't try to convince them forcefully, or else you will strengthen their belief in brainwashing. Explain rationally why YOU believe the vaccine works, and the evidence as to why you are convinced, and accept if they don't change their beliefs.
From experience, sometimes people are very refusing when arguing in person, but over time they think it over and might change their mind.
From experience, sometimes people are very refusing when arguing in person, but over time they think it over and might change their mind.
You have to convince them that the pros of getting it outweigh the cons, like convincing anyone of anything.
I had this same thought experiment, let’s assume this vaccine were 95% effective and the government sent a tablet to everyone in the mail.
What would the outcome be?
I posed this question to Soccer Dads and immediately was told they wouldn’t risk the long term effects of a vaccine.
Same dads that wouldn’t wear a mask and don’t fear the unknown long term effects of COVID
What would the outcome be?
I posed this question to Soccer Dads and immediately was told they wouldn’t risk the long term effects of a vaccine.
Same dads that wouldn’t wear a mask and don’t fear the unknown long term effects of COVID
There is something there about the different standards people use to judge the virus vs the vaccine.
The vaccine could have “unknown long term effects”.
But the virus “only has an x%” death rate”. No concern about unknown long term effects.
The vaccine could have “unknown long term effects”.
But the virus “only has an x%” death rate”. No concern about unknown long term effects.
One question I have about mRNA vaccines that I haven't been able to find the answer to through my own searching: how is the mRNA delivered to the cell?
All the articles I read say that the mRNA is "taken up by the cell", but what is the mechanism? Do cells naturally just absorb free-floating mRNA? Or is a modified virus used to inject the mRNA?
All the articles I read say that the mRNA is "taken up by the cell", but what is the mechanism? Do cells naturally just absorb free-floating mRNA? Or is a modified virus used to inject the mRNA?
John Campbell talks about that here in a digestible way: https://youtu.be/smm_ZvJqJk4?t=438
Very very simplified: Basically, you have a blob of fat that the mRNA sits in. The fat sticks to the cell, merges with the cell membrane and the mRNA pokes into the cell. It's not a modified virus, it's a much simpler structure but it has a similar mechanism. It's much simpler in that it can't replicate itself or do much else. It's literally just the code for a protein that's found on the surface of the covid virus, in a blob of fat.
That's for the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine. Other vaccines, such as the Oxford/AstraZeneca one do use a modified virus.
That's for the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine. Other vaccines, such as the Oxford/AstraZeneca one do use a modified virus.
So no spike protein needed?
Safe to assume that in time these will evolve into new forms of fat-embeded rna virus which no living being has immunity to?
Safe to assume that in time these will evolve into new forms of fat-embeded rna virus which no living being has immunity to?
In both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines the RNA is encapsulated in “lipid nanoparticles”. These microscopic droplets of oily liquid — about 0.1 micron in diameter — enclose and protect the fragile genetic instructions as they are manufactured, transported and finally injected into people. https://archive.is/6dxTg
So it's naked mRNA wrapped in oil, basically?
“The lipid nanoparticles have some adjuvant activity, providing a little inflammation with the vaccination that helps the immune system to make antibodies and T-cells that target the Sars-Cov-2 virus,”
Itchy oil, then.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/10/21/how-pfizers-rna-vaccine...
Essentially the mRNA is packaged into a lipid, which the body's cells can uptake thru its phospholipid bilayer
Essentially the mRNA is packaged into a lipid, which the body's cells can uptake thru its phospholipid bilayer
It appears there are a few different approaches, described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#Delivery
Viral vectors were the ones I was familiar with. I am not sure which one the Pfizer vax uses, however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#Delivery
Viral vectors were the ones I was familiar with. I am not sure which one the Pfizer vax uses, however.
Slightly off topic, but it's crazy how polarized this topic is - even on HN. Try scrolling through this thread with dead comments on.
Many of them are probably trolls, still, it's weird to me.
Many of them are probably trolls, still, it's weird to me.
TBH, it's concerning. Not that HN is immune from strongly-held polarizing opinions. But, it's pretty obvious that for a lot of people, you're either in camp "Get it as soon as available, no questions asked" or you're an anti-vaxxer. (Personally, I'll get it as soon as I can.)
But this has all the signs of getting very ugly once a vaccine becomes available. I certainly don't expect the military to hold people down and vaccinate them by force. But I do expect a lot of severe restrictions in some places on people who don't want to get vaccinated right-off that will put them in a tough position.
But this has all the signs of getting very ugly once a vaccine becomes available. I certainly don't expect the military to hold people down and vaccinate them by force. But I do expect a lot of severe restrictions in some places on people who don't want to get vaccinated right-off that will put them in a tough position.
The people I know who are waiting on getting the vaccine are fine with having the same lockdown type precautions. (Wearing masks, not seeing people as frequently, less travel, working remotely, etc.)
The people I know who are cautious with getting the vaccine are below 50. So, they’ll have to wait a while anyway. Most of us are not like... wait years for effects to emerge. More like 6-12 months after initial rollout.
I’m one of those people. I’m fine with still being remote and wearing a mask when in stores or whatever. I’m not going to go to any dances anytime soon even if I had the shot anyway. Effectiveness isn’t 100% after all. (Is there an easy way to tell if you’re immune after without any risk? That’d be nice...)
The people I know who are cautious with getting the vaccine are below 50. So, they’ll have to wait a while anyway. Most of us are not like... wait years for effects to emerge. More like 6-12 months after initial rollout.
I’m one of those people. I’m fine with still being remote and wearing a mask when in stores or whatever. I’m not going to go to any dances anytime soon even if I had the shot anyway. Effectiveness isn’t 100% after all. (Is there an easy way to tell if you’re immune after without any risk? That’d be nice...)
Do we know how long does the vaccine holds?
Is that like polio and lasts for years, or like the flu and you need a new dose each year?
Is that like polio and lasts for years, or like the flu and you need a new dose each year?
There isn't really a way to know for certain (as not much time has passed), but there are hints that it might last for years[0].
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immuni... (with links to the studies inside)
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immuni... (with links to the studies inside)
Unless I missed it, there hasn't been any data released. I'm only seeing PR accouncements.
AIUI, the thing that makes a vaccine's effectiveness very short term, like flu vaccines, is the natural evolution of the virus, not its effect on the immune system. It's not that people who got a 2015 flu aren't still immune to the 2015 flu, it's that wild flu virii look different in specific ways that cause them to slip by. As such, I think these drug companies don't really have much to release for each vaccine.
(That isn't to say the immune system can't forget immunity - TDAP boosters are for evolution, but for refreshing the immune system - but that super short term immunity like flu, AIUI, is about the virus not the vaccine.)
(That isn't to say the immune system can't forget immunity - TDAP boosters are for evolution, but for refreshing the immune system - but that super short term immunity like flu, AIUI, is about the virus not the vaccine.)
> As such, I think these drug companies don't really have much to release for each vaccine.
They should still release the data. PR releases don't always match reality.
They should still release the data. PR releases don't always match reality.
> Unless I missed it, there hasn't been any data released. I'm only seeing PR accouncements.
Because there is no long term data on covid19 mutation speed.
You need a cohort to take the vaccine and then some time before doing a retroactive study.
Because there is no long term data on covid19 mutation speed.
You need a cohort to take the vaccine and then some time before doing a retroactive study.
There's still data, and it hasn't been released. I would like to know the details of 95% effective.
[deleted]
I was listening to an interview with Paul Offit[1] a vaccinologist and member of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (which advises on COVID-19 vaccines).
His message was "You honestly don't know ahead of time", but his caveatted guess was actually that it would be long-lasting (giving the example of measles), not like the flu.
[1] https://open.spotify.com/episode/6Z7m56ACJ1VZ0ZKuw4iiGb
His message was "You honestly don't know ahead of time", but his caveatted guess was actually that it would be long-lasting (giving the example of measles), not like the flu.
[1] https://open.spotify.com/episode/6Z7m56ACJ1VZ0ZKuw4iiGb
I'm in a rush, so hopefully someone can dig up some actual links to scientific papers, but current immunity from naturally infected people has stayed strong and shows no sign of weakening. The immune response from the vaccination has at least as strong, so in all likelihood we're looking at very long response.
Doesn't immunity only last several months though?
No, that's just been a popular conspiracy theory.
No, it stays strong and shows no sign of weakening.
According to several studies, that's not true.
"Two new studies demonstrate how severity of disease is predictive of longer-lasting antibody production and detail how immunity wanes over time but may exist for up to 7 months."
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/studies-...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isola...
There's also evidence of re-infection
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
"Two new studies demonstrate how severity of disease is predictive of longer-lasting antibody production and detail how immunity wanes over time but may exist for up to 7 months."
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/studies-...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isola...
There's also evidence of re-infection
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
You (or rather the writer of that news piece) apparently confused antibodies and immunity. Not only are antibodies not the only mechanism of the adaptive immune system, T cells are harder to test for but equally important. Also it's normal that the body doesn't keep them around indefinitely after an exception. It creates memory cells and quickly recreates antibodies and T cells when needed.
There is evidence that reinfection does occasionally happen, but none that it happens frequently enough to worry about. The paper you've linked mentions four cases.
There is evidence that reinfection does occasionally happen, but none that it happens frequently enough to worry about. The paper you've linked mentions four cases.
You're right, but are there any peer reviewed papers that back up your argument?
> The paper you've linked mentions four cases.
Those are confirmed cases. That doesn't mean there's only 4 total.
> The paper you've linked mentions four cases.
Those are confirmed cases. That doesn't mean there's only 4 total.
I don't know if there are any papers for Covid in particular but it's how the immune system works in general. AFAIK there is no reason to assume it Covid differs in that respect.
> Those are confirmed cases. That doesn't mean there's only 4 total.
I'm sure there are more, but how many? There have been hundreds of millions of infections (according to the WHO). If there are a few dozen or even a thousand reinfections among them, it's not a phenomenon we need to worry about.
We could assume that reinfections are common even without any evidence for or against, but then we are playing something akin to Pascal's wager. Also, I think if reinfections were common, by now we would very likely have evidence for that by now.
> Those are confirmed cases. That doesn't mean there's only 4 total.
I'm sure there are more, but how many? There have been hundreds of millions of infections (according to the WHO). If there are a few dozen or even a thousand reinfections among them, it's not a phenomenon we need to worry about.
We could assume that reinfections are common even without any evidence for or against, but then we are playing something akin to Pascal's wager. Also, I think if reinfections were common, by now we would very likely have evidence for that by now.
Your first link only focuses on (the easier to test) antibodies, and doesn't mention T cell memory, which is the much more important factor in long-term immunity.
And of course there are going to be individual cases of reinfections with 55+ million cases.
And of course there are going to be individual cases of reinfections with 55+ million cases.
Your logic checks out, but are there peer reviewed papers that back up your argument? This isn't my field, so I'm not aware of any.
There is one right in the list on the CDC page you linked[0]. There is also a recent Nature paper[1] that shows that T cells levels are stable for at least the first 100 days they observed. I don't know of a specific link to send you for that, but that usually indicates T cell immunity on the timescale of multiple years (otherwise some drop in levels would have already been visible in the observed time period).
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7427556
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01143-2
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7427556
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01143-2
> The immune response from the vaccination has at least as strong
Is that true? I always thought it was at most as strong (eg, David Katz says so here: https://youtu.be/YLLENema1Co?t=462), but I'm seeing this assertion float around also. Which is it?
Is that true? I always thought it was at most as strong (eg, David Katz says so here: https://youtu.be/YLLENema1Co?t=462), but I'm seeing this assertion float around also. Which is it?
I'm really concerned about long term implications of mRNA vaccines; Hope they won't turn humans into zombies;
I get the sense that a lot of HN users are down-voting any comment that calls into question this vaccine's safety.
I think this will end up having the opposite effect than intended.
There's truth that there's a remote chance this vaccine has long-term side effects. From my reading, I would estimate that risk to be 0.0001% - 0.01%.
If your goal is to promote vaccination, it's better to actively engage in the conversation by explaining how the benefits far outweigh the risks. Silencing dissenting opinions will only serve to reinforce those beliefs.
I think this will end up having the opposite effect than intended.
There's truth that there's a remote chance this vaccine has long-term side effects. From my reading, I would estimate that risk to be 0.0001% - 0.01%.
If your goal is to promote vaccination, it's better to actively engage in the conversation by explaining how the benefits far outweigh the risks. Silencing dissenting opinions will only serve to reinforce those beliefs.