Jump to content

When offered the Vaccine, will you take it?


Recommended Posts

On 9/6/2020 at 10:14 AM, IStream said:

Agree about Moderna

YES YES YES!!!  I will be getting a shot.  

Not an MD, RN or PhD

However I follow a couple of guys who seem to know what to do well before most people.   Scott Gottlieb and Jim Cramer.   Everything I am reading is to stay clear of Moderna.   I am waiting to see what shot Jim Cramer gets.  He seems to have access to a tremendous amount of insider information.  His call on Remdisivir was spot on multiple times.  Multiple times he has communicated doubts on Moderna.    I have to agree with the political implications.   Corporate issues outside of Moderna seem to be somewhat mute.   The vaccine is not going to cause the stock to soar for the big boys.  This is a very mixed blessing for J and J as well as Pfizer.   I do fear small start ups, has beens and anyone who could see a stock price jump.  (Moderna, Kodak etc).   Any of these small firms that have involvement I will stay clear of.   Kodak is not a part of the Vaccine but it sure illustrates a company not to trust. 

I stopped listening to the politicians.   Scott Gottlieb is about as close to Corporate / Political types that I believe.   

I will not be having any future children so that issue does not play into my decision.  I need to get back to some form of normal functioning.  I can avoid eating at an inside table.  I cannot stop business activities.  I can continue to wear a mask.  I can social distance.   

My biggest fear is not getting Covid 19.  The fear is what happens 10 years after I get this virus?   Is it like Chicken Pox and Shingles?  Get Chicken Pox and later be eligible for Shingles.  Herpes Zoster is a skin disease.  Would Covid 19 come back in the lungs?   

 

Scott Gottlieb

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The private sector has embarked on a major campaign to reassure the public that they will not release a vaccine until they are confident it is safe and effective. We can expect a joint statement from

You/they ARE participating in the trial, like it or not. You're the control group, no different than if you got a saline shot but without the ethical dilemmas that would involve. Thank you a

As many of you know I am right of center politically.  I dont think vaccines are a political issue or at least they should not be.  My family are all vaccinated. I tried to think of how I should

Posted Images

@EYESAILOR - my answer is no. I know my kids answer is no but she will be forced to sadly. Many of us likely will be (forced to).  Why.... let me ask you...

Name me another vaccine for a disease with an IFR (or similar mortality rate) to Covid that will have less of a safety database at launch (# patients studied or time followed).  Just one.

So its clear I would suggest my parents take it. The relative risk ratios of not being vaccinated are not in their favor. They are in their late 80s and not in good health. It’s 50:50 at best that they would survive Covid given their comorbidity. I am in my late 50s and in good health and at very low risk from covid. My kid even less by order of magnitude. The vaccine would represent a greater risk than the disease given the shortcuts being taken. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A vaccine probably would not be needed if folks were not so bone headed. A much larger neighboring county mandated masks. New cases quickly dropped, now near zero. 50 miles away, our anti-everything county with a population 1/50th of theirs, is seeing a continual increase in new cases, despite fewer and fewer tests. I still think common sense is the answer. Too bad America and all its selfish greed lost this basic instinct. We are doomed.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

As soon as the agencies that guarantee the safety of the vaccine are not run by political appointees.  I will not be another victim of the current president's war on science. There are already a minimum of about 170,000 of them.  

1. The OVRR is not run by a political appointee

2. The head of the FDA, commissioner, is appointed by the President and approved by the senate. Its a political appointment, always has been, always will be.   You will not change the process, all you can change is  the person who makes the appointments.

3. If you turn down a vaccine that has been thoroughly reviewed by the OVRR and advocate others avoid a vaccine, then you and many others are already a victim of the current president's war on science ....and may even be helping to conduct it on his behalf.   My personal view!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Varan said:

A vaccine probably would not be needed if folks were not so bone headed. A much larger neighboring county mandated masks. New cases quickly dropped, now near zero. 50 miles away, our anti-everything county with a population 1/50th of theirs, is seeing a continual increase in new cases, despite fewer and fewer tests. I still think common sense is the answer. Too bad America and all its selfish greed lost this basic instinct. We are doomed.

Some Americans are smarter than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

@EYESAILOR - my answer is no. I know my kids answer is no but she will be forced to sadly. Many of us likely will be (forced to).  Why.... let me ask you...

Name me another vaccine for a disease with an IFR (or similar mortality rate) to Covid that will have less of a safety database at launch (# patients studied or time followed).  Just one.

 

1.  Small Pox.   Variola minor had a mortality rate of approx 1%. Variola major had a mortality rate of 30%. An awful disease. The early vaccines database????  Observing that milkmaids didnt get smallpox!

2. Influenza.   There is a new component to the vaccine every year. They are thoroughly tested but nothing like the scale of the CV19 trials.

I will flip the question, can you tell me what percentage of approved drugs (not just vaccines, any drug) with phase 3 trials have a cohort in excess of 30,000?  What do you think is the usual size for a statistically significant phase 3 trial?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this study from Spain very interesting. Rather small sample but highly significant.

Randomized, looked at the effects of high dosis of Calcefediol (Vit D) in patients admitted to hospital, but not yet to ICU.

Of the group without Vit D, 50% went to ICU, of the group with only 2%.

So maybe that is where we should look first? An effective treatment?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7456194/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"All hospitalized patients received as best available therapy the same standard care, (per hospital protocol), of a combination of hydroxychloroquine...."

This isn't going to go down well, you have been told only a vaccine can save us, your getting off script now (sorry about the pun). Prepare to be discredited.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also surprised to see them use hydroxychoroquine as their 'standard treatment', but as it was given in both groups, I think you can factor that out.

 

I would also agree that further studies need to be done. Some things caught my eye in the composition of this study:

a. the group that did not receive Vit D has a much larger percentage of people with high blood pressure as a co-morbidity.

b. it also has a higher percentage of patients with high D-Dimer, a predictor for the risk of thrombosis, one of the main 'features' of Covid.

On the other hand, the percentage of males in the non-Vit D (i.e. statistically more at risk") group is higher.

What the study does is to 'add-up' all co-morbidities and then postulate, that the percentage of patients 'at risk' (i.e. with co-morbidities) in both groups is basically equal and that therefore co-morbidities are controlled for. Here, a more differentiated view would certainly be good, but you would need a much larger sample. 

Still, the statistical difference is so striking that I think, this needs to have much more attention, especially when considering that we are entering the 'dark months' in the northern hemisphere. As Vit D is synthesized by the skin, less is then produced. In Europe, 17% of the population have a deficit between October and March, with a higher risk in those > 65 years of age, as their ability to produce the vitamin drop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Matagi said:

So maybe that is where we should look first? An effective treatment?

That's my personal belief too. Just don't get the feeling there is much political will to encourage people to build healthy bodies and immune systems to help reduce the impact of this disease, and develop successful treatments. Vit D deficiency and its effects on the immune system has been well known and researched for a long time but nothing much is done about it. It's all about the vaccine (and the money)

The rate of death and disability from all sorts of diseases can be greatly impacted by the lifestyle choices of the population but there is too much money to be made selling the unhealthy stuff and the treatments that are subsequently needed to change the model. 

Why fight a disease with a treatment for those that get really sick when you can sell a preventative to 100 times as many people and get them to repeat it each year?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Matagi said:

So maybe that is where we should look first? An effective treatment?

I prefer that approach as well.  Would also be nice to have more effective testing, cheap with quick results, instead of rushing to vaccinate against a virus that is barely understood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Eye that was kinda misleading or non responsive at best.  Lets stick to modern times shall we. 

While I disagree with Clean - I don't think there will (or even could be) undue pressure to approve quickly in part because its becoming increasingly clear just how limited the risk of the virus is both in terms the statistics and those meaningfully vulnerable - the table has been set to some extent in terms of the standards to be applied.  I thinks its fair to say that in modern history there has never been a vaccine developed this quickly and with this limited a safety database in terms of the time that subjects have been tracked for.  And as others have pointed out because of the nature of this type of vaccine its efficacy is likely to be fairly limited.  All of that adds up to one hell of the thing and risk for a vaccine that will be forced upon so many of the world's population.  IO think even you would admit if you are being fair... this is unprecedented many times over. 

Ultimately this comes down to how much risk you are - or think you are - at from the virus.  For me that number is zero at least for now.  For me 4 months ago - late 50s, good health and not exposed - it was exceeding low. For my kid - 20s, exceptional health - its even lower yet.  And at the end of the day that is the question.  Is the virus or the vaccine the greater risk.  For my parents - late 80s and poor health - there is no doubt the virus is the greater risk. For my kid its most likely the vaccine that is the greater risk.  For me at present there is no doubt the vaccine is the greater risk.  If you asked me 4 months ago it would be a 50:50 toss up but I would have rather taken my chances with the virus because that I at least have some control over though my own actions.

Bottom line:  If you are under age 65 and in good health I would avoid the vaccine.  If you are older, in poor health, or simply scared (no judgement intended that is an individual factor that should be considered) to go out of your house then of course get vaccinated.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I should add for Eye...

I assume you saw the news re vaccine delays yesterday (multiple companies mentioned in this thread) and today as they study unexpected side effects... ie potential safety issue.  That does not mean I think any of these companies are evil or would knowingly put out a vaccine that will kill people.  I have good reason and history and experience to know that is not the case.  But here is what is (the case).

Every single drug or vaccine or what have you that gets submitted for review and is (or isn't) approved comes down to risk and benefit.  They ALL have some risk.  And some benefit.  And the relative risk reward ratio that an approval is based on is a subjective criteria established by people with opinions. Sure there is data involved but end of the day what is and isn't acceptable in terms of risk and reward is a personal opinion of the people approving the drug or the doctor recommending it or the person being injected.  It ain't black and white.  Its grey.  Subjective.  And can vary from person. 

And thus why this should be an individual decision and not something forced on people - though in reality that fight is already lost sadly.  Especially sad in a country that used to be the home of the free and land of the brave.  Now increasingly the home of the constrained, and land of the cowardly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Wess said:

Hey Eye that was kinda misleading or non responsive at best.  Lets stick to modern times shall we. 

While I disagree with Clean - I don't think there will (or even could be) undue pressure to approve quickly in part because its becoming increasingly clear just how limited the risk of the virus is both in terms the statistics and those meaningfully vulnerable - the table has been set to some extent in terms of the standards to be applied.  I thinks its fair to say that in modern history there has never been a vaccine developed this quickly and with this limited a safety database in terms of the time that subjects have been tracked for.  And as others have pointed out because of the nature of this type of vaccine its efficacy is likely to be fairly limited.  All of that adds up to one hell of the thing and risk for a vaccine that will be forced upon so many of the world's population.  IO think even you would admit if you are being fair... this is unprecedented many times over. 

Ultimately this comes down to how much risk you are - or think you are - at from the virus.  For me that number is zero at least for now.  For me 4 months ago - late 50s, good health and not exposed - it was exceeding low. For my kid - 20s, exceptional health - its even lower yet.  And at the end of the day that is the question.  Is the virus or the vaccine the greater risk.  For my parents - late 80s and poor health - there is no doubt the virus is the greater risk. For my kid its most likely the vaccine that is the greater risk.  For me at present there is no doubt the vaccine is the greater risk.  If you asked me 4 months ago it would be a 50:50 toss up but I would have rather taken my chances with the virus because that I at least have some control over though my own actions.

Bottom line:  If you are under age 65 and in good health I would avoid the vaccine.  If you are older, in poor health, or simply scared (no judgement intended that is an individual factor that should be considered) to go out of your house then of course get vaccinated.

 

The phase 3 trials of the corona virus vaccines are comprehensive by the measure of modern times. The size of the trial is larger than almost any other drug in recent history and the length of the trial relative to the disease provides further reassurance. 

There are two ways that you are going to develop antibodies to CV19. The first is to get sick and develop antibodies.  The second is to have a vaccination.  The first is fraught with risk, is not a pleasant experience even for a 55 year old and may have secondary consequences that we dont fully understand.  The second involves a non-risky way to stimulate anti-bodies.  The vaccine mimics the outer shell of the vaccine without the harmful virus itself....the human body produces its own natural antibodies, something that your body does naturally every week to any foreign virus molecule.....so that when the real virus shows up, it is rejected by these antibodies, 

The problem with an approach of "letting the disease run its course" is that it paralyzes society in the meantime. We are struggling to reopen schools. Kids are losing an important part of their lives. Businesses which depend on people congregating (from restaurants to concerts to airlines) are dying. Millions are unemployed. The critical human need of social interaction is getting harmed.

In addition, CV19 has a higher mortality rate than we should be prepared to accept.  Yes younger people have a better survival rate, but it is still more fatal to younger people than the flu.  It is horrible to accept the number of deaths as an alternative to a vaccine. I have a 21 year old son.  His chance of dying from CV19 is less than 0.5% but I still could not bear to be the 1 in 200 parent to lose my child. I have a husband who is older and I could not bear to lose him simply because we dont take the vaccine. My entire family have discussed and we are going to be vaccinated when we can.....because we love each other, will do what is necessary to protect each other

And.......we want the economy to get back to normal. We want our son to have  a  job. We want our savings to be worth something so we can retire (the debt, potential inflation and near zero interest rates are scary to all of us)

In my mind, a society respecting and trusting the well established science of vaccines and how antibodies works should be able to enthusiastically embrace universal vaccination for CV19.......much as we have previously done over the last 50 years ago...which eradicated diseases like smallpox and reduced the incidence of yellow fever to irrelevance..

We dont need to be suffering and beholden to CV19.  There will likely be a vaccine and we can nip this in the bud so that it is a 3 years piece of history not a lingering mutating part of the rest of our lives.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Wess said:

Oh and I should add for Eye...

I assume you saw the news re vaccine delays yesterday (multiple companies mentioned in this thread) and today as they study unexpected side effects... ie potential safety issue.  That does not mean I think any of these companies are evil or would knowingly put out a vaccine that will kill people.  I have good reason and history and experience to know that is not the case.  But here is what is (the case).

Every single drug or vaccine or what have you that gets submitted for review and is (or isn't) approved comes down to risk and benefit.  They ALL have some risk.  And some benefit.  And the relative risk reward ratio that an approval is based on is a subjective criteria established by people with opinions. Sure there is data involved but end of the day what is and isn't acceptable in terms of risk and reward is a personal opinion of the people approving the drug or the doctor recommending it or the person being injected.  It ain't black and white.  Its grey.  Subjective.  And can vary from person. 

And thus why this should be an individual decision and not something forced on people - though in reality that fight is already lost sadly.  Especially sad in a country that used to be the home of the free and land of the brave.  Now increasingly the home of the constrained, and land of the cowardly.

Yes.   One person on the AZ trial was ill for unexplained reasons. The trial is immediately paused. SOP until the person is examined and it is determined if the cause was related to the vaccine.  Surely this should reassure you about the extent and detail of a modern vaccine trial.

When/if  a succesful trial is complete. In the US there will labelling. It will outline the risk. BUT vaccines usually carry very low to negligible risk compared to most medicine and drugs because they stimulate a natural reaction in your body versus introducing a molecule to affect your body.

For example, the treatments we are using to treat CV19 have known risks and side effects which way exceed anything likely from a successful vaccine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

 

In my mind, a society respecting and trusting the well established science of vaccines and how antibodies works should be able to enthusiastically embrace universal vaccination for CV19.

That society doesn't exist in this country, thanks to the religious right and their political party's successful 30-year campaign of weaning Americans off science and onto Jeebus.  Now that Jeebus is in charge, those of us who don't trust ghosts are not going to trust ghost-supervised novel medicine that could, if timed properly, help Jeebus retain power regardless of its efficacy or safety.

Like everything else that's gone on with this pandemic, the US is providing an incredibly valuable service to the rest of the world: Providing a cautionary tale; teaching them how dangerous hubris can be.  The longer people say things like "vote for the party you like", the longer we will provide that service to the world at the cost of American lives. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

SOP until the person is examined and it is determined if the cause was related to the vaccine.

For example, the treatments we are using to treat CV19 have known risks and side effects which way exceed anything likely from a successful vaccine.

First, no its not SOP.  Its specific to what agreed in the IND (in the US).  And I never said they would not do a good job; that's Clean.  I said they would do the best they could relative to their opinion of accepted risk/reward and whatever standards are agreed to with respect same..

Second, you are shrilling again.  Do you want a discussion or to simply restate your opinion endlessly.  I am fine to play it either way; its SA for gosh sake and I am equally down with a fun trolling and shrilling thread.  But if you want a discussion then demonstrate you can be fair and balanced and answer a simple question...

  * Will there be some known and unknown safety risk associated with every covid vaccine approved; yes or no?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it already been mentioned that vaccines like the one that was just put on hold now (for a while) don't last forever ? in a comment coming from a professor virology it was mentioned that AstraZeneca's vaccine would be ok for 6 months, in other words, you'd need a shot twice a year.

There are vaccines that are being developed which may last longer and maybe for life (doubtful), but development of this type of vaccine takes more time, so probably we'll have to start with one type and next move to another, don't know if you can combine all that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wess said:

  * Will there be some known and unknown safety risk associated with every covid vaccine approved; yes or no?

 

 

I am not sure I know what shilling means in this case.

I am genuinely trying to answer but at the same time push back on conspiracy theories that might harm a balanced decision.

But to answer your question

1. Yes there will be known risks with any vaccine. They will be articulated in the trial results and publicly available.  The vaccine will only be approved if the known risks are negligible and significantly outweigh the risks of the placebo (ie someone who doesnt take the vaccine)

2. Will there be unknown risks?  By its very nature, I guess I must answer "I dont know". 

We know what it is like now, trying to live work and survive in the era of Cv19. I do not know, nor do any of us, how much better life will be if we create a sfe from CV19 world but my judgement is that it will be better. I (and all of us ) dont know a lot about this disease ...so I honestly answer I dont know if there will be unknowns.....but just that a vaccine will make all of our lives better and the probability or likelihood of significant ill effect from an approved vaccine is incredibly low....less than the probability of ill effects from catching the disease and the ill effects of a society stricken by unemployment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Albatros said:

Has it already been mentioned that vaccines like the one that was just put on hold now (for a while) don't last forever ? in a comment coming from a professor virology it was mentioned that AstraZeneca's vaccine would be ok for 6 months, in other words, you'd need a shot twice a year.

There are vaccines that are being developed which may last longer and maybe for life (doubtful), but development of this type of vaccine takes more time, so probably we'll have to start with one type and next move to another, don't know if you can combine all that.

Yes Alb.

I think phase 3 trials by the end of this year will tell us most everything about

1. Efficacy. does it stop you getting the virus?

2. Safety. Are there adverse side effects?

You are right, I dont think we will know how long the vaccine remains effective.  Some vaccines create antibodies that last a lifetime . some vaccines need annual boosters. Some vaccines (yellow fever) need boosting every 7 years.  I do not know about any of the candidates .

The good news about CV19 is that it needs new hosts all the time so if a vaccine lasted say 2 years and we could get most people vaccinated, it might be possible in a couple of vaccination cycles to eliminate the disease.  the task would be large because we cant leave it lingering in Africa or other poor nations because it would just reappear again.  So the West will hav eto step up.

 

Must go bye

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

I am not sure I know what shilling means in this case.

I am genuinely trying to answer but at the same time push back on conspiracy theories that might harm a balanced decision.

But to answer your question

1. Yes there will be known risks with any vaccine. They will be articulated in the trial results and publicly available.  The vaccine will only be approved if the known risks are negligible and significantly outweigh the risks of the placebo (ie someone who doesnt take the vaccine)

2. Will there be unknown risks?  By its very nature, I guess I must answer "I dont know". 

We know what it is like now, trying to live work and survive in the era of Cv19. I do not know, nor do any of us, how much better life will be if we create a sfe from CV19 world but my judgement is that it will be better. I (and all of us ) dont know a lot about this disease ...so I honestly answer I dont know if there will be unknowns.....but just that a vaccine will make all of our lives better and the probability or likelihood of significant ill effect from an approved vaccine is incredibly low....less than the probability of ill effects from catching the disease and the ill effects of a society stricken by unemployment.  

Hmmm.  You still seem to be dancing.  With every drug or vaccine there are unknown safety risks when its approved.  Its why sponsors must submit annual and adverse event reports and labeling gets updated.  It happens all the time.  Many drugs start out without black box warning and later get them added.  You do know that right?  If you are going to claim expertise in this field then either stop BS-ing and be fair or admit you are pushing a personal agenda irregardless of the facts.

You state that a "vaccine will make all of our lives better."  I have proven immunity.  Neutralizing antibodies.  How will I improve my life which is at zero risk from covid by being forcibly injected with a vaccine that by your own admission carries some risk?  How will my kid improve her life which is at virtually zero mortality risk of covid given her age and health improve her life by being forcibly injected with a vaccine that by your own admission carries some risk? 

To be clear I admit taking the vaccine would improve my parent's life since they are at significant risk of dying of covid if they get it.  And I admit it will improve your life if you are very old, very fat, very sick, or very scared.  But for everyone else?  The majority who can fog a mirror?  Its far from clear for them that taking a covid vaccine that will be so rapidly developed and have undergone a very limited period of time in safety studies is a good thing (for them). 

Have you considered that maybe the very old, very fat, very sick or very scared, should not get to decide what the rest of us have to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eye, you keep mentioning conspiracy theorists. Are you referring to the commenters here? I haven't seen a whole lot of conspiracy theorizing here, just a strong sense of skepticism about the motivations of our president and his political appointees as well as the limitations of credible but rushed vaccine trials (e.g. inability to measure response persistence).

You can be a vocal champion of masks, social distancing, pervasive testing for surveillance, not to mention a strong believer in the value of vaccines, and still harbor skepticism about the integrity and inherent limitations of the processes that will lead to a COVID vaccine. The two are not mutually exclusive. The folks who feel this way and are unwilling to stand first in line for a vaccine are not the problem. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

The phase 3 trials of the corona virus vaccines are comprehensive by the measure of modern times. The size of the trial is larger than almost any other drug in recent history and the length of the trial relative to the disease provides further reassurance. 

There are two ways that you are going to develop antibodies to CV19. The first is to get sick and develop antibodies.  The second is to have a vaccination.  The first is fraught with risk, is not a pleasant experience even for a 55 year old and may have secondary consequences that we dont fully understand.  The second involves a non-risky way to stimulate anti-bodies.  The vaccine mimics the outer shell of the vaccine without the harmful virus itself....the human body produces its own natural antibodies, something that your body does naturally every week to any foreign virus molecule.....so that when the real virus shows up, it is rejected by these antibodies, 

The problem with an approach of "letting the disease run its course" is that it paralyzes society in the meantime. We are struggling to reopen schools. Kids are losing an important part of their lives. Businesses which depend on people congregating (from restaurants to concerts to airlines) are dying. Millions are unemployed. The critical human need of social interaction is getting harmed.

In addition, CV19 has a higher mortality rate than we should be prepared to accept.  Yes younger people have a better survival rate, but it is still more fatal to younger people than the flu.  It is horrible to accept the number of deaths as an alternative to a vaccine. I have a 21 year old son.  His chance of dying from CV19 is less than 0.5% but I still could not bear to be the 1 in 200 parent to lose my child. I have a husband who is older and I could not bear to lose him simply because we dont take the vaccine. My entire family have discussed and we are going to be vaccinated when we can.....because we love each other, will do what is necessary to protect each other

And.......we want the economy to get back to normal. We want our son to have  a  job. We want our savings to be worth something so we can retire (the debt, potential inflation and near zero interest rates are scary to all of us)

In my mind, a society respecting and trusting the well established science of vaccines and how antibodies works should be able to enthusiastically embrace universal vaccination for CV19.......much as we have previously done over the last 50 years ago...which eradicated diseases like smallpox and reduced the incidence of yellow fever to irrelevance..

We dont need to be suffering and beholden to CV19.  There will likely be a vaccine and we can nip this in the bud so that it is a 3 years piece of history not a lingering mutating part of the rest of our lives.

 

 

 

3 years would seem to fit the science, but will it fit the culture?  Gibson likes to say the future arrives some places before others, which will stress the world beyond comprehension, esp given intentional authoritarian confusions existing before COVID hit- think city state Italy, da Vinci, the Church, the enlightenment, and the technology of war, just as an example.  

I hope medical science can maintain some sort of neutrality- I’d like to think that’s your stance- but I don’t see Trump respecting it, which means a neutral science can’t tolerate or survive him.  And as a result, even as tolerant as you are (which I respect) there are no rational reasons for you to be ok with any support of Trump.
 


 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Amati said:

3 years would seem to fit the science, but will it fit the culture?  Gibson likes to say the future arrives some places before others, which will stress the world beyond comprehension, esp given intentional authoritarian confusions existing before COVID hit- think city state Italy, da Vinci, the Church, the enlightenment, and the technology of war, just as an example.  

I hope medical science can maintain some sort of neutrality- I’d like to think that’s your stance- but I don’t see Trump respecting it, which means a neutral science can’t tolerate or survive him.  And as a result, even as tolerant as you are (which I respect) there are no rational reasons for you to be ok with any support of Trump.
 


 

 

Correct.

The mutual recognition of testing, mitigation and vaccination measures will become an integral part of foreign policy of the future, it will become as much a negotiation item as tariffs are today. We have seen that already in Europe, Trans-Atlantic or as a prime example in the 'travel bubble' of NZ and Australia. 

It is vital that vaccine manufacturers (private or state-owned) don't enter this game. In 1942, scientists did not know what their knowledge would lead to..

They have a chance to redeem themselves know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I need to offer up an additional comment as this topic seems to have taken on a political tone.  I did not want to contribute to that and I don't think its true.

To be specific and clear I don't think that there is anything Obama could have done or Trump can do or Biden could do if elected to meaningfully speed up or slow down an approval or rejection for this vaccine.  I get there are press reports about recent events - and they tend to distort and blow our of proportion the usual pressures from the Hill.  I can't really say to much other than I am certainly in a position to know but its just not realistic to say anyone on the Hill could reverse this one way or the other.  

To be clear Republican administrations have tended to push for a greater emphasis on efficacy over safety (especially for drugs addressing fatal diseases) and if you think back that came out of the AIDs crisis and a criticism that FDA and others didn't move fast enough and take enough risk and that was likely fair criticism. Stranghe bedfellows politcs makes some times but that was the birth of the patient advocacy movement that Republicans often embrace now. The Democratic administrations have generally pushed more of a safety over efficacy agenda and both POVs have merit and value.  There is no one right answer for everyone.  And while the various Agencies obviously shift emphasis a bit to align with an Administration  - and they should IMHO given its the will of the voters, I have never seen the FDA (who will be the ones approving any vaccine) abandon science or even be asked to, to approve or reject any drug.

My comments earlier in the thread are not intended to support or refute any political candidate or agenda and I don't even thinks that they (the candidates) are even relevant to the topic or question being asked.  My reasons for not wanting to take a vaccine for covid - or suggesting my parents should - are not driven at all by any candidate or political philosophy.  Frankly anyone who does think like that likely gets what they deserve. 

Chow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just by the nature of the data, it's likely that reasonable data to evaluate "safety" will be in hand before "efficacy."  The latter depends on significant numbers of people in the placebo group getting sick and dying.  That could take many months or years.  Especially as they're probably, you know, trying to avoid that.  

It might be a reasonable strategy to roll out an apparently safe vaccine with as yet unknown efficacy, if people realize that's what it is and act accordingly.  

As to whether I would take it - depends on the data and the cost.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BOI Guy said:

Before the Columbus and his mates got there

Was that when the natives were lopping heads off and rolling them down the pyramid, eating each other, or running thousands of buffalo off a cliff?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, toddster said:

Just by the nature of the data, it's likely that reasonable data to evaluate "safety" will be in hand before "efficacy." 

 

Correct. We are collecting safety data in both phase 1 and phase 2 trials. We dont go to phase 3 unless we have clear indications or clues of efficacy but we definitely dont go to 3 if any safety issues are raised in 2. Phase 3 is where we are really looking for big data to provide statitical significance of efficacy.

You are also right that if the vaccine is really good the efficacy stats will improve as the trial extends because some of the placebo are not going to be exposed to the virus in the first 60 days of the trial.  The trial will mathematically model some of that by testing all cohort candidates at periodically testing intervals and making assumptions vs general population data.

Since the trial requires 2 shots (I think but cannot remember if it was 14 days or 30 days apart).......then the time line on this is going to be really short for those hoping for approval pre-election . I think we get Phase 3 update but approval before election is hard to imagine without some seriously accelerated enrollment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hatin' life said:

Was that when the natives were lopping heads off and rolling them down the pyramid, eating each other, or running thousands of buffalo off a cliff?

Which pyramid were they doing that here in what we call the USA

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 8:08 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

.  I will not be another victim of the current president's war on science. There are already a minimum of about 170,000 of them.  

Hi Clean,

I think I have four questions that will help me understand your position more clearly. I apologize if I have misconstrued your stance before as anti-science.

1. If Biden is president and the head of the FDA is appointed by Biden and approved by the senate, would you take a vaccine unanimously approved by the OVRR and the FDA? with all the accompanying data

2. If a vaccine is similarly approved by the OVRR and FDA when Trump is president, would you take that vaccine?

3. Nothing can persuade you to take a vaccine....you have a aversion to needles and distrust medicine in genera?

4. You and other Americans will take a vaccine after 20-50 million other candidates have gone first,?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Hi Clean,

I think I have four questions that will help me understand your position more clearly. I apologize if I have misconstrued your stance before as anti-science.

No worries.  For what it is worth, I am a fairly zealous supporter of scientific principals and on the support of professional/expert advice in governance.   I have long viewed the political and religious right's long-lived quest to diminish the acceptance of scientific principles and evidence-based policies as one of the most treasonous courses of conduct perpetrated against our country in the last century.

1. If Biden is president and the head of the FDA is appointed by Biden and approved by the senate, would you take a vaccine unanimously approved by the OVRR and the FDA? with all the accompanying data

Probably not unless the health agencies of less science-averse countries than ours approve it also.  If enough time had passed for the cancerous individuals to be cut out of the FDA (couple of months) and I was not at risk for noted nasty effects, then yes.

2. If a vaccine is similarly approved by the OVRR and FDA when Trump is president, would you take that vaccine?

Probably not unless and until the health agencies of less science-averse countries with no major US-held debt or stalled military equipment contracts with the US approved it also.  

3. Nothing can persuade you to take a vaccine....you have a aversion to needles and distrust medicine in genera?

I have no aversion to needles or vaccines. My child was vaccinated fully on schedule.  I get a flu shot every year.   I stuck my wife every day for almost a year with a huge needle full of ovidrel.  I do not distrust medicine in general, and I trust research scientists very much.  I definitely do not however trust for-profit company boards of directors and for-profit executive officers to put safety or health before their desire to reach share price milestones and increase profits, market share, and political influence.  I also do not believe that 'doctors know best' all the time, or my friend who is a relatively ethical med mal plaintiff's attorney wouldn't have one daily driver porsche, one summer porsche, and one track day porsche.

4. You and other Americans will take a vaccine after 20-50 million other candidates have gone first,?

I don't speak for other Americans.  Whether I would take the vaccine after some arbitrary number of people already received it would depends on how fast they get that many doses out, and whether other approvals have been won as outlined in my answers to 1. and 2.  If Trump had the CDC fill 50 million syringes with mountain dew and load a massive cargo train with them, he'd have 50 million IQ<100 vaccine candidates crowding the train stations from Hackensack to Half Moon Bay to get pricked.  I ain't taking what they take until I see how many drop dead or get covid over the ensuing months.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Which pyramid were they doing that here in what we call the USA

Monks mound in Illinois was possibly a pyramid.  I don't think the Illinois indians were the vicious variety though.

Central America though, they knew how to murder some folks

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2020 at 9:32 AM, EYESAILOR said:

Yet various polls indicate that there is a possible reluctance to take the vaccine 

What is your personal stance? and why?

If the vaccine comes out just before the election, I won't be standing line to get it, for obvious reasons. 

If the vaccine comes from McKesson, I won't trust it because McKesson was the company the CDC said would be coming out with the pre-election vaccine.

If Trump hawks the virus, I won't take it.  He has a poor history of hawking cures for COVID-19.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hatin' life said:

Monks mound in Illinois was possibly a pyramid.  I don't think the Illinois indians were the vicious variety though.

Central America though, they knew how to murder some folks

Mexico too, and all the way down to South America, I believe.  But not here.  The most belligerent indigenes here were more about eating their enemies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Mexico too, and all the way down to South America, I believe.  But not here.  The most belligerent indigenes here were more about eating their enemies.

There were some warring mother fuckers in what is now the US too.  For fun, for sport, the usual reasons.

Back to the start of this little side step, when was it land of the free.  I go with pre humans.  Humans don't have to be fucking crackers to be cunts.  They all can be, and plenty make use of the option.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 8:08 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

As soon as the agencies that guarantee the safety of the vaccine are not run by political appointees.  I will not be another victim of the current president's war on science. There are already a minimum of about 170,000 of them.  

Do you really believe this?

Given I have near zero risk factors I would opt out of the vaccine but not because I doubt the approval process.  You should read this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/10/sound-science-to-meet-covid-challenges-fda-career-officials-column/5756948002/.

None of those folks is a political appointee.  And actually you (and I am surprised you and others don't seem to know this) would apparently be quite surprised at how little the sole political appointee could do in terms of approval or not.  Those decisions are made deep withing the organization.  Those quoted above are all career scientists and not political appointees.  They include Center Directors.  And they don't make the decisions.  Nor do the Super Office Directors, or Sub-Office Directors, or Division Directors or Branch Chiefs.  The decision is made and signed off by a primary reviewer (they literally have to put their name on it) and the fastest way to get yourself in trouble in that role is to pursue a political agenda as opposed to following the regulations and data/analysis vs set standards.  And if its not clear the other thing you should know is that its always easier and safer for a reviewer to say no (not approve).  There is always something you can find.  Its the nature of the regulator role (and especially a career scientists deep in the organization) to take no risk and say no (not approve).  Further, so its clear, I am saying flat out that it would be impossible for a political appointee to override any approval / rejection decision made without it making National and International news... because it has never, ever, happened and never, ever, will.

So if you understand your risk factors and how much of a threat covid is or isn't to you, given your specific health and family situation, you would seriously be crazy to not take the vaccine if one gets approved and your risk factors suggested you would benefit by taking it.

And that is coming from a guy who will not take the vaccine - but simply because my mortality risk from covid itself is essentially zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mortality risk is low, as is my family's, but my neighbor and close friend just turned 80. I'll take the vaccine just to protect her, especially since vaccines can be less effective in older folks due to immune senescence. Even without her in our inner social circle, I'd take the vaccine because of the possibility of long-term pulmonary, cardiac, and other issues that are associated with COVID. 

My only issue is that I don't want to be first in line. There are millions who are eager to take a vaccine ASAP and I'm eager to let them go ahead of me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your willingness to take a vaccine, unless its mandated and forced upon you - which post election I bet it will be in the US - is all about your personality mortality risk because that vaccine is not without risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandatory vaccine laws dating back more than a hundred years give the state the authority to put broad public health concerns ahead of individual rights. It also gives the state the right to chose between competing medical philosophies.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandatory-vaccination-legal-time-epidemic/2006-04

Id humbly suggest that getting the public to broadly comply with mandatory vaccine laws(subject to fine) when they seem ready to bear arms over mask or no mask would be a long shot for a novel virus that many remain sceptical of the dangers on a personal level,  and seem unable to understand the concept of asymptomatic transmission and it’s threat to broader segments of the population.

Another approach might be to roll back the artificial vaccine deadline to next years Sturgis bike rally for a grand opening meant to green light a shot in the arm for Joe Public. Health officials can introduce their shiny new meds, fresh from a lab for a mysterious disease which might have initially  escaped from a lab.

No vaccine, no SmashMouth. Good luck.

By that time if trends continue, many countries might likely have the virus under control w/o the benefit of a vaccine, but at least it’ll be a made in America solution.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wess said:

Do you really believe this?

Given I have near zero risk factors I would opt out of the vaccine but not because I doubt the approval process.  You should read this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/10/sound-science-to-meet-covid-challenges-fda-career-officials-column/5756948002/.

None of those folks is a political appointee.  And actually you (and I am surprised you and others don't seem to know this) would apparently be quite surprised at how little the sole political appointee could do in terms of approval or not.  Those decisions are made deep withing the organization.  Those quoted above are all career scientists and not political appointees.  They include Center Directors.  And they don't make the decisions.  Nor do the Super Office Directors, or Sub-Office Directors, or Division Directors or Branch Chiefs.  The decision is made and signed off by a primary reviewer (they literally have to put their name on it) and the fastest way to get yourself in trouble in that role is to pursue a political agenda as opposed to following the regulations and data/analysis vs set standards.  And if its not clear the other thing you should know is that its always easier and safer for a reviewer to say no (not approve).  There is always something you can find.  Its the nature of the regulator role (and especially a career scientists deep in the organization) to take no risk and say no (not approve).  Further, so its clear, I am saying flat out that it would be impossible for a political appointee to override any approval / rejection decision made without it making National and International news... because it has never, ever, happened and never, ever, will.

So if you understand your risk factors and how much of a threat covid is or isn't to you, given your specific health and family situation, you would seriously be crazy to not take the vaccine if one gets approved and your risk factors suggested you would benefit by taking it.

And that is coming from a guy who will not take the vaccine - but simply because my mortality risk from covid itself is essentially zero.

Yes, WES, IN  normal times all that is 100% true, but if you actually believe that shitstain is not doing his damnedest to push whatever wacky vaccine is out there regardless if it works or not you are not paying attention.  Hell he would probably put saline in vaccine btls, I would not put it past him...   I also would not be surprised if he has been secretly funding the production of whatever vaccine Jules's company is pushing since the beginning of the trials and he is going to push the hell out of it in the run up...  No way will I be standing in line for that...   

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

1. If Biden is president and the head of the FDA is appointed by Biden and approved by the senate, would you take a vaccine unanimously approved by the OVRR and the FDA? with all the accompanying data

Probably not unless the health agencies of less science-averse countries than ours approve it also.  If enough time had passed for the cancerous individuals to be cut out of the FDA (couple of months) and I was not at risk for noted nasty effects, then yes.

The single most important nation in the world in terms of scientific innovation is the USA.  In terms of technology, medical technology and biotechnology etc, we lead the world . We are not a "science-averse" nation just because of the flat earth contingent.

The US led the way in terms of an independent agency to review drugs. The FDA was founded as an independent federal agency in 1906 .  This was waaaay ahead of the erst of the world. For example , there were no systematic review bodies in UK until the 1950s and 1960s and even then they were buried in divisions of the Health Department or office of statistics..The UK and Europe did not have an independent agency until the 1990s!

Even now, some US pre-clinical companies seek approval in other major nations where the process can be less demanding than the US. FDA approval is the gold standard.

If you basically distrust the FDA then you are in a bad place of general distrust of the world......understandable but sad.    We've named the individuals who will lead the vaccine review process in the OVRR up thread. None of them are cancerous individuals. Quite the opposite, if we see them being removed then that should be our warning sign. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The single most important nation in the world in terms of scientific innovation is the USA. 

was, not is.  It remains to be seen if we can recover the perception of our 'importance'.

If you basically distrust the FDA then you are in a bad place of general distrust of the world......understandable but sad. 

Of course I distrust the world.   I have visited some 58 countries and seen good and bad everywhere.  Corruption is universal, but some countries - most of them in Europe - seem able hold it in check with powerful and transparent institutions.  With our institutions infested with criminal and unethical appointees charged with dismantling them, America now has the worst corruption of any country in the world. Already we had it bad; calling it 'lobbying' or 'superPAC spending' does not make it any different than buying off a local mayor in Guatemala, it just costs several orders of magnitude more cash.  Add the administrative deconstruction, 'enemy of the state' shit, and now we are the world's richest banana republic.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

O.M.G.  I lover this place.  All the nutters lined up in a row...

There are a couple  strands of scepticism on this thread.

1. A pre 2021 vaccine being brought to the public in the US is a tad ambitious. Fauci would be in this camp.

2. Among a basket of vaccines that may or may not  come online worldwide in the near future, people are wary that a Trump administration might not serve the public’s interest best. This is valid even w/o interfering with the FDA. Suppose the FDA approves 2 drugs on safety but with varying efficacy. Who is left to promote which drug? What if foreign made vaccines are better for a wider variety of factors?

People have a right to be sceptical of their institutions when they are being run over roughshod right before their eyes. They also have a right to be sceptical of an administration’s future handling of the pandemic based on past results. 

Supplanting a panacea solution (a vaccine or vaccines)that doesn’t yet exist has a deleterious affect on current efforts to teach social distancing and mask wearing which have been demonstrated as effective in other countries.

How bout some music...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

 

 

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200-400 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage  :)

Meanwhile cross fingers for the good people working hard on the University of Oxford vaccine .....I do hope this works out for them I like to be optimistic....oters on this thread have called me naive https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/statement-on-astrazeneca-oxford-sars-cov-2-vaccine-azd1222-covid-19-vaccine-trials-temporary-pause.html.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Shit is getting real inside the agencies.  Complete and total chaos in many.  

Look I can’t get into any great detail and you are going to believe whatever you want to believe but in terms of the Agencies relevant to this discussion you are so far off base you can’t begin to imagine.  The money grubbing nuts on TV are a different story but at a working level nothing has changed. Literally nothing. Given your (and your wife and kid’s) age and health it likely don’t matter what you do. And that is likely true for most folks. But for somebody older or in poor health what you are saying matters and while it maybe makes great internet fodder it’s absolutely totally 100% bunk. Just sayin...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wess said:

Look I can’t get into any great detail and you are going to believe whatever you want to believe but in terms of the Agencies relevant to this discussion you are so far off base you can’t begin to imagine.  The money grubbing nuts on TV are a different story but at a working level nothing has changed. Literally nothing. Given your (and your wife and kid’s) age and health it likely don’t matter what you do. And that is likely true for most folks. But for somebody older or in poor health what you are saying matters and while it maybe makes great internet fodder it’s absolutely totally 100% bunk. Just sayin...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/55-of-coronavirus-patients-still-have-neurological-problems-three-months-later-study-2020-08-07
 

just sayin’....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? 

Good grief the Repubs have Qanon or whatever and the Dema have you nutters. No wonder the world is going to hell. 

Time to hide my money offshore and move to Sweden LOL. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200-400 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage  :)

Meanwhile cross fingers for the good people working hard on the University of Oxford vaccine .....I do hope this works out for them I like to be optimistic....oters on this thread have called me naive https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/statement-on-astrazeneca-oxford-sars-cov-2-vaccine-azd1222-covid-19-vaccine-trials-temporary-pause.html.

I think you are naive about how much effect a willing administration can have on almost any agency.  Otherwise, you are a good soul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Wess said:

Look I can’t get into any great detail 

Super secret probation?

I work with agencies.  I speak to DOJ staff frequently on a number of securities law matters.  I have met with treasury officials for another client, and with NCUA staff for another. It's a total shit show at all of those with chaotic chain of command and supervision problems galore.  What evidence do you have that FDA is any different?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200-400 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage  :)

Meanwhile cross fingers for the good people working hard on the University of Oxford vaccine .....I do hope this works out for them I like to be optimistic....oters on this thread have called me naive https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/statement-on-astrazeneca-oxford-sars-cov-2-vaccine-azd1222-covid-19-vaccine-trials-temporary-pause.html.

Dylan Thomas:

 

4E3F468F-F252-4240-B752-4DFF4E0F0CB7.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Super secret probation?

I work with agencies.  I speak to DOJ staff frequently on a number of securities law matters.  I have met with treasury officials for another client, and with NCUA staff for another. It's a total shit show at all of those with chaotic chain of command and supervision problems galore.  What evidence do you have that FDA is any different?  

See PM. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Thanks for that.  I remain unconvinced for the moment.

I was right about Ivanka though.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ivanka-trump-says-shell-take-coronavirus-vaccine-live-on-the-view-after-joy-behar-challenges-her-to-take-it/

Right; how so? As I have said based purely on science and risk factors it would make no sense for me to take it at the moment and for foreseeable future. But if that is what I needed to do to convince my parents who should take it I would do so in the blink of an eye. You can ramble on about FDA all you want but you are wrong. Totally and completely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200-400 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage  :)

Meanwhile cross fingers for the good people working hard on the University of Oxford vaccine .....I do hope this works out for them I like to be optimistic....oters on this thread have called me naive https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/statement-on-astrazeneca-oxford-sars-cov-2-vaccine-azd1222-covid-19-vaccine-trials-temporary-pause.html.

Darn. 

The vaccine candidate, one of 10,000 in the UK trial , developed symptoms consistent with transverse myelitis .   https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/transverse-myelitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20354726

It is very rare and I don't know a lot about it. Neurologists have speculated that one cause is immune system attacking the nerve tissue (see above) which is going to mean very careful study to discover if there was any causal link to the vaccine. Note that they had a phase 2 pause due to one patient with Multiple Sclerosis symptoms. So they are going to have to go back and check that as well to make darn sure it was not transverse myelitis.  This is what trials are for. 

There may not be a causal connection but this is a very rare condition.

Hoping that Pfizer and Moderna making better progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

. You can ramble on about FDA all you want but you are wrong. Totally and completely.

I'm not rambling about FDA.  I'm discussing the current state of agency oversight and management in the US, while you respond with comments about how things used to work with a side of "trust me because it has never, ever, happened".  Sorry but I have seen about 1000 things happen in three years that 'never, ever happened' before.  Fool me once...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wess said:

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? 

Good grief the Repubs have Qanon or whatever and the Dema have you nutters. No wonder the world is going to hell. 

Time to hide my money offshore and move to Sweden LOL. 

Just checked the price of tea in China. Based on current exchange rates it says you are a moron.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 4:06 PM, EYESAILOR said:

In particular I hope you are not suggesting that the Democrats are an anti-vax party.

Trump is.  Try not to sound like him.

Trump Wildly Accuses Biden Of Being A Coronavirus ‘Anti-Vaxxer, 09/10/2020
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-biden-antivaxxer-coronavirus_n_5f5a82a6c5b6b48507fdb214

Quote

Trump continued: “You don’t want to be talking about the vaccines in a negative way, especially when you see the statistics that we’re starting to see. They’re incredible, actually. Biden’s perfectly happy to endanger the lives of other people by doing something that he thinks is going to help him politically because his polls are getting very bad. They’re getting very shaky.”

Recent polls have consistently shown Biden to have a strong lead over Trump. 

The president’s comments appear to come as a response to brief remarks Biden made earlier in the week about his hopes for a potential vaccine, and his concern that misinformation could hurt efforts to vaccinate the population.

Trump has said “so many things that aren’t true,” Biden stated Monday, “I’m worried if we do have a really good vaccine, people are going to be reluctant to take it. So he’s undermining public confidence.”

 

Long ago when I was still a young man I lived and worked in Washington, D.C. for three years (computer programming and telecommunications).  Everyone I met there, federal employees and "beltway bandits" (consulting firms with government contracts), was extraordinarily competent and dedicated.  The best and brightest from all over the country doing important work with very high integrity.  I like to believe that's still the case for career professionals who work there, not including lobbyists.  But one has to be naive indeed to think that political pressure and money has no influence on all kinds of policy decisions.

Google "fda scandals" for example: https://www.google.com/search?q=fda+scandals

Here are just the first five results of that search:

Hidden conflicts? Pharma payments to FDA advisers after drug approvals spark ethical concerns
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical

Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration

Whistleblowers reveal FDA exacerbated Vioxx scandal
https://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Article/2005/05/30/Whistleblowers-reveal-FDA-exacerbated-Vioxx-scandal

15 Disturbing Facts About the FDA
https://www.mastersinhealthcare.com/blog/2011/15-disturbing-facts-about-the-fda/

FDA safety scandal: 50K hidden reports of heart device malfunctioning
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/fda-safety-scandal-50k-hidden-reports-of-heart-device-malfunctioning/

 

Following Trump's lead on anything without a high degree of skepticism would be foolish and/or partisan - a chump or a shill.  Please try to understand that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that all happened before Trump right? Most of it under Obama and Clinton. Oh and the first line in the Wiki is classic. Sounds like FDA got it just right LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

You do realize that all happened before Trump right? Most of it under Obama and Clinton. Oh and the first line in the Wiki is classic. Sounds like FDA got it just right LOL.

You remind me of brutalist architecture.  
 

I’ll just leave it at that. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to vaccines , I trust the OVRR and FDA to do a better job appraising vaccines than elsewhere. However since these vaccines will be simultaneously submitted to all of the regulatory bodies around the world including the equivalent of the FDA in Europe and Japan.....it goes without saying that a vaccine that is universally approved will be my choice over one that is rejected by some regulators. 

Furthermore I know that in the US, the mere existence of our plaintiff bar ensures that big pharma sets a very high standard for safety.  A small phama company might be prepared to "bet the company" on a vaccine but not Pfizer or J and J. These companies have many lines of profitable drugs and treatments that they will not put the company at risk due to law suits for releasing an unsafe vaccine.

When a vaccine is available, I and my family intend to get vaccinated.  Our global society does not get back to normal until this disease is eradicated.from further waves. I do not want to spend the rest of my public life wearing a mask nor do I want to wait until I get CV19 .  Bring on a safe vaccine, as soon as possible. 

Hopefully vaccines will be available so that we can host our Viper World Championship at Noroton Yacht club next October.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Health Official Reportedly Pressured CDC To Alter COVID-19 Info To Back President, 09/12/2020
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cdc-health-department-michael-caputo-covid-19_n_5f5c4354c5b67602f6056bf3

Quote

A politically appointed Health and Human Services official with no medical background has been orchestrating an operation to pressure scientists and other officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to use sunnier language in their COVID-19 reports to reflect well on President Donald Trump, Politico reported Friday.

Some emails from the Health Department’s communications team viewed by Politico to CDC Director Robert Redfield and other senior officials flatly complained that the agency’s reports would undermine Trump’s optimistic messages about COVID-19. One email said that the “CDC ... appears to be writing hit pieces on the administration,” Politico reported.

The pressure operation is being run by Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign official with no scientific background. He was appointed the assistant secretary of HHS for public affairs in April. He runs a a team of communication aides who have been seeking unprecedented pre-publication access to the CDC reports since then, according to Politico.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From here:

THE PANDEMIC TIMELINE
Steven Harper is following the pandemic for Moyers on Democracy.
https://billmoyers.com/spotlight/the-pandemic-timeline/

 

Dr. Hahn’s Betrayal: The FDA in Crisis BY STEVEN HARPER | SEPTEMBER 9, 2020
https://billmoyers.com/story/dr-hahns-betrayal-the-fda-in-crisis/

Quote

For [FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn], a Washington outsider who worked his way up the ranks of academic medicine, the slide down has been swift.

#1: Dr. Hahn’s Hydroxychloroquine Debacle
      (detailed timeline follows)

#2:  Dr. Hahn’s Reluctance to Expose Trump’s Lies

July 4: Trump makes the dangerously false claim that 99 percent of COVID-19 cases in the US are harmless.

July 5: Appearing on CNN, Dr. Hahn is asked about Trump’s bogus “99 percent harmless” claim. “I’m not gonna get into who’s right and who’s wrong,” he says.

#3: Dr. Hahn’s Convalescent Plasma Disaster
      (detailed timeline follows)

And Now Comes a Potential Vaccine
      (detailed timeline follows)

Dr. Hahn’s Short Leash

The next step is October 22, when NIH’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviews the “development, authorization and/or licensure” of a coronavirus vaccine. Board members are not government employees. Typically, they are experts in vaccine science and biostatistics who teach at major medical schools. So Dr. Fauci says that he’s “not concerned about political pressure” in the process.

But he should be. DSMB guidance isn’t binding on Dr. Hahn or his boss, HHS Secretary Azar. Neither of them has committed to follow it.

And Trump’s heavy hand is everywhere. Dr. Hahn is not allowed to speak to the press unless Azar’s deputy, Michael Caputo, is on the line. Caputo has no background in health care, but he has known Trump since the 1980s, when he worked briefly for a lobbying and political consulting firm started by Paul Manafort, Charlie Black and Roger Stone — whom Caputo considered a mentor.

 

America Needs a CDC Whistleblower — Now BY STEVEN HARPER | SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
https://billmoyers.com/story/america-needs-a-cdc-whistleblower-now/

Quote

As the Republican National Convention wrapped up its opening day and the pandemic continued to ravage the nation, the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control quietly revised its website to call for less COVID-19 testing.

No press release.

No media briefing.

And no underlying scientific basis for the change.

That’s because the science of controlling the pandemic points in the opposite direction. Until August 24, so did the CDC. For Americans’ public health, the revision is a giant leap backward. An enraged medical community demands answers, and the country needs to know how it happened.

 

and many more...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 8:31 PM, Kent H said:

YES YES YES!!!  I will be getting a shot.  

Not an MD, RN or PhD

However I follow a couple of guys who seem to know what to do well before most people.   Scott Gottlieb and Jim Cramer.   Everything I am reading is to stay clear of Moderna.   I am waiting to see what shot Jim Cramer gets.  He seems to have access to a tremendous amount of insider information.  His call on Remdisivir was spot on multiple times.  Multiple times he has communicated doubts on Moderna.    I have to agree with the political implications.   Corporate issues outside of Moderna seem to be somewhat mute.   The vaccine is not going to cause the stock to soar for the big boys.  This is a very mixed blessing for J and J as well as Pfizer.   I do fear small start ups, has beens and anyone who could see a stock price jump.  (Moderna, Kodak etc).   Any of these small firms that have involvement I will stay clear of.   Kodak is not a part of the Vaccine but it sure illustrates a company not to trust. 

I stopped listening to the politicians.   Scott Gottlieb is about as close to Corporate / Political types that I believe.   

I will not be having any future children so that issue does not play into my decision.  I need to get back to some form of normal functioning.  I can avoid eating at an inside table.  I cannot stop business activities.  I can continue to wear a mask.  I can social distance.   

My biggest fear is not getting Covid 19.  The fear is what happens 10 years after I get this virus?   Is it like Chicken Pox and Shingles?  Get Chicken Pox and later be eligible for Shingles.  Herpes Zoster is a skin disease.  Would Covid 19 come back in the lungs?   

 

Scott Gottlieb

 

I kind of agree with Kent. I will get a vaccine

 

I think Dr Eye published an interesting question about a non-political topic.  A huge effort is being put into vaccine research around the world because it is seen as the best way to defeat CV19, save lives and get back to normal.  But a huge potential  glitch is beginning to surface.  What if we have a successful, safe vaccine but nobody wants to take it?  At first that seemed improbable to me but....

Eye poses the problem and surveys the SA community to see who will take the vaccine.

The SA response exposes that the problem is real.  There are many smart, educated contributors to this forum  who are clearly very reluctant to take the vaccine.

The thread went off in a political side track but the issue is not really political... in reality I think this is a classic prisoner's dilemma.  Nobody wants to go first.  Herd immunity through vaccination is a good thing, but if I wait, everyone else can take the risk and create herd immunity. If I wait I benefit from the vaccine and the herd immunity without taking any risk of the vaccine. However if everyone thinks this way and nobody takes the vaccine then I will probably end up getting CV19 and so I should take the vaccine.  But if everyone thinks that, then they will all get the vaccine and I will be protected by herd immunity, so maybe I should not?    As I say classic prisoners dilemma. .

The key ingredient that has created this dilemma is fear.  In the US in particular, social media has created a layer of mistrust for the OVRR and the FDA such that regulatory approval for the vaccine may not reassure candidates that the vaccine is safe,  The common response I am hearing here is that "I will wait until millions of people have had the shot".

At times, in some of these posts when you look at the credentials of the people who are reviewing the vaccine and the rigorous process for reviewing the vaccine, these fears seem misplaced ....which somehow turns into a political debate.  But the simple matter is that this fear of a vaccine has gained some traction in the US and will be difficult to displace.  I dont have an answer to this challenge.

I can answer Eye's original questions:

I will be taking the vaccine when my turn comes. Prior to that I will have reviewed all the information about the vaccine and the trial results.

1) How effective was the Vaccine in preventing CV19?  Did any candidates acquire CV 19 more than 2 weeks after the second booster shot?

2)  A comprehensive list of all or any side effects.

The trial results will be public and I intend to read them. But my goal is to get myself and my family vaccinated.  In this case, the prisoners Dilemma is lop sided.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to the question: "When the vaccine is available, will you be taking it?"  the response on SA was as follows :

Yes : 15

No : 8

Yes:  Eye, Miffy, NeedAClew, Bristol Cruiser, RaprorSailor, Shortfor Bob, bacq2bacq, Weyalan, LB15, KentH Wind, IP Lore, Mambo King

No: Istream, Mid, Clean, ProaSailor, Fufkin, Wes, Jules and one other.

If I have missed anyone, it is because your answers were opaque.

If you have changed your mind during the debate, feel free to update.

Reassuringly the majority of SA'rs are not anti-vaxxers.   But 35% of  a relatively articulate and educated audience  saying they will not take a vaccine is till high, demonstrating tht the FDA and the vaccine companies need to do more to reassure the general population if we want a high acceptance rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a certain context, the  prisoners dilemma can be construed as a political dilemma at heart as it pits individual reward against group altruism. (If interested...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick)

More to the point, here’s something from this mornings NY Times on both inter agency pressure and White House-agency pressure re the approval and over stating of plasma therapy on the eve of the RNC.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/12/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-treatment-vaccine.html

To the extent that the roll out of a vaccine has already been politicized by the current admin I’m not sure this can be undone and simply looked at ‘through an apolitical lens’.

BTW Merck just announced commencement on a ‘one shot’ vaccine. They’re aiming for some time in 2022.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

In answer to the question: "When the vaccine is available, will you be taking it?"  the response on SA was as follows :

Yes : 15

No : 8

Yes:  Eye, Miffy, NeedAClew, Bristol Cruiser, RaprorSailor, Shortfor Bob, bacq2bacq, Weyalan, LB15, KentH Wind, IP Lore, Mambo King

No: Istream, Mid, Clean, ProaSailor, Fufkin, Wes, Jules and one other.

If I have missed anyone, it is because your answers were opaque.

If you have changed your mind during the debate, feel free to update.

Reassuringly the majority of SA'rs are not anti-vaxxers.   But 35% of  a relatively articulate and educated audience  saying they will not take a vaccine is till high, demonstrating tht the FDA and the vaccine companies need to do more to reassure the general population if we want a high acceptance rate.

You mischaracterized my response. I will take the vaccine, but I will not do so until several million people have taken it before me and at least a month has passed. No amount of reassurance from the FDA and vaccine companies will change that. Only Phase III results transparency and real-world data from a larger population.

Given my risk profile, I won't have the opportunity to take it until those conditions are met anyway so for all intents and purposes your question is moot.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites