Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I dont mind a few more months of staying safe, its not a big deal to me and Ill get it later on
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
covid can do/does plenty of nasty things to "non vulnerable" people besides kill them
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.
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...
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.
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."
Do you get a flu vaccine each year?
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.
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.
Vaccine trials tend to be larger because you have to account for the fact that only a small number of people will get infected.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Given how sensitive to temperature this vaccine is, I would like some reassurance that no one mishandled it along the way.
You know, the nurse who queues up a few doses at a time and then gets delayed in actually administering them.
*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-...
* 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.
Seems to be a few unknowns still ?
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.
this virus is causing more insanity than health effects.
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.
This attitude is why the pandemic rages on with such intensity in so many places
I don't mean to split hairs; the distinction is important.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
No it doesn’t, because vaccine development is more like bridge building than software development.
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.
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.
I could not care less about anyone's opinion of my "perceived selfishness".
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. "
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.
All analogies are flawed. That's why they are merely suggestive and not meant to be interpreted overly literally.
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.
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.
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.
It's kind of wild when you think about it.
• 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....).
Larger studies don't make up for decreased time in either identifying long term effectiveness or identifying delayed effects.
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 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.
Not that you’ll be able to get the vaccine for months anyway, unless you work in healthcare.