We could have universal Covid vaccines soon
slowboring.com
slowboring.com
Even if you have a pan coronavirus nasal vaccine the NAbs will wane and people will get infected again.
It doesn't matter if we use more mRNAs than just spike for more targets or anything else. It'll mutate, NAbs will wane, people won't get vaccinated and the virus will persist.
People are looking for a silver bullet which will confer the naive ideal of "perfect immunity" against this virus which just doesn't exist. The vaccines we have though are great, particularly against severe disease and death. But it won't get much better than this.
The disease burden is currently high compared to common colds because the virus is still novel and our immune system responses aren't 100% fully formed and tested. Once everyone has been exposed to the antigen a half dozen times and the virus is forced to mutate off of its naive optimum then the disease burden will drop even further. Then we just have another human common cold coronavirus.
Nobody is freaking out over HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E or HCoV-OC43.
because it transmits between humans and cats and deer.
This is presented as a fact/certainty, however, I'd like to caution that it is still unclear whether multiple reinfections will add up to lasting damage (unlike the common cold), see e.g. [1].
That said, I agree with you that it'll be hard to eradicate this virus given how quickly it mutates (I'm just not as certain of the consequences).
We don't see other respiratory viruses behaving that way, and its more likely that this one won't either.
Topol isn't a very good source either, he's speaking outside of his area of expertise (he's a cardiologist, not an immunologist/virologist/epidemiologist)
- Only about 2% of kids under 5 have had a 1st dose since they were introduced nearly a month ago
- Only 30% of the 5-11 year old population has had 2 doses
- < 50% of people w/2 doses went on to get a booster
So much damage has been done to public trust - "You will not get Covid if you get the vaccine; the vaccine eliminates the spread of the disease; the vaccine is more effective than natural immunity; healthy 18 year old males need a booster to go to school" - that I think it will be a real uphill climb to get more buy-in, even if the actual underlying product is more effective.
I think the booster rate is a reasonable sign that trust in "the science" has been lost - why do you think such a large % of people who initially "followed the science" (and got 2 doses) chose not to "follow the science" and get a booster? (Again, keeping in mind boosters have been widely available since late 2021)
That's not what the CDC is saying at all.
Just because they were made available a month ago doesn't mean anyone actually had access a month ago.
For instance, 5-11 year olds were up to 15% at about the same period of time after the vaccines were made available to that age group - https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/an-upda...
15% vs. 2% is a pretty substantial drop in just ~6 months, no?
They finally just called us to see if we wanted it, but we ended up going to Rite Aid.
And at the time, that was true because we were dealing with the original strain.
Nothing else you said is untrue either. The vaccine drastically reduced the spread of the virus. I'm not sure what you're getting at besides spreading more disinformation.
edit: i've replied several times below but everyone needs to keep in mind WHEN things were said. When the CDC said you wouldn't catch the virus in early 2021 - they were basically fully accurate because we were dealing with the original strain. Delta did not exist yet. The original vaccines were INCREDIBLY effective against the original strain - beyond anyone's wildest expectations. 100% effectiveness against death and severe hospitalization. 95% effectiveness against symptoms entirely. These levels of protection were amazing. Yes, things changed when Delta arrived, and even moreso with omicron and future subvariants, but you can't go back with hindsight and discredit what was said _at the time_.
It's likely the vaccines reduced the spread of the virus temporarily, but it certainly wasn't very long-lasting. The efficacy waned quickly, even against the original strains/Alpha/Delta - take a look at case rates in Israel (first heavily vaccinated country) through mid-late 2021 (before Omicron).
Do you have a source for this? It sounds completely implausible.
Back in 2020, press release from Pfizer:
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
> "Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics; observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%"
Sorry, the trust is long gone and never coming back.
[1] https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/emails-confirm-why-cdc-ch...
edit: sorry i'm rereading your post and I'm not even sure what your issue is with the current definition
Really?
So the definition the CDC used for years to describe vaccines had to be changed, since by their own definition the COVID vaccine wasn't actually a vaccine. And the best part is they didn't even announce & explain the change, they just stealthily modified it on their website.
And you don't understand why so many people think secretly redefining a very important word after the fact to change the meaning is shady? Especially considering government mandates put millions of people in a very uncomfortable spot with employment - you don't see why that would lead to mistrust?
OK. I'm not sure we'll be able to square this circle then.
Which part of the new definition do you disagree with as being a valid definition for a modern vaccine? And what difference does it make functionally? The covid vaccines were a product that gave you protection against a disease. Everyone knows that's what a vaccine is. I don't see why it matters what the definition on the site was to begin with.
Isn't the fundamental point of a vaccine to protect you from a disease? Because that's exactly the part of the definition they removed.
1. 1968 flu pandemic. 2. 1957 flu pandemic
a plainly false statement was made: "it's the only truly global pandemic in a century", your goalposts movements notwithstanding.
Lack of knowledge around basic facts of the field (public health) is a clear and immediate disqualification from any further consideration.
Do you really make suggestions on changes to public heath and epidemiology based on "a quick google"?
Best of luck to you.
This is nonsensical ranting. The idea that "There can and should be changes to public health and epidemiology" is not the same as "making suggestions personally", do not conflate them. For the former, all that you need to know is if others have found areas for improvement, and clearly they have (1), so your statement has no merit whatsoever.
The "a quick google" part only applies to the severity of previous pandemics, do not apply it to the other parts. Or rather, lets hear your expert wisdom on that subject - was the severity the same as COVID-19 then?
If you want fixed goalposts, then the one thing to answer is: do you deny that the current pandemic "can and should cause changes to public health and epidemiology" ?
1) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-o...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00925-7
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...
Until then enjoy being wrong.
It was, quite frankly, a psyop of the highest order. And they're still pushing it, even in this thread.
must be another deboosted keyword in here somewhere!
Delta obviously changed that, and omicron has changed it much more.
Always coming back with the weasel words after lies. This is why the one side can not be trusted at all. They always lie and distort the truth.
Anti-vaxxers aren't new. What we have here is an unhealthy mix of exceptionalism, anti-intellectualism and contrarianism. There is a psychological comfort in believing you' can see through the [Big Lie/Conspiracy].
Prior to Covid it was autism and vaccine. When was the last time you heard about that? Before Covid. Why? Because we've moved on to another vaccine to be skeptical about. The same thing will happen again.
It goes on well before autism too. Polio and smallpox vaccines had their own oppoosition but now we somehow remember those as the "safe" vacines rather than the baselessly "unsafe" mRNA vaccines.
As far as undermining public trust goes, this isn't new either. It has been the platform of the Republican Party for since at least the Reagan era to completely undermine public institutions through chronic underfunding and then use that "failure" as a justification for further funding cuts.
The sad reality is that America in particular has a problem with self-identifying free-thinkers who are the most easily manipulated of all except it's not by the government: it's by church leaders, politicians, grifters (eg Andrew Wakefield in the autism vaccine era, Bob Malone in the Covid era) and self-declared "leaders" because so many lack the capability or interest for critical thinking and simply want to be told what they feel is right.
Look no furhter than your own comment here: no one said the vaccine means you won't get Covid but that's a commonly pushed straw man argument. You'd know that if you remotely looked into it but I very much suspect you don't care. You've decided that's "reality" so that's that.
The FDA and CDC never claimed that if you get vaccinated, you won't get covid. Once Biden mis-spoke during an off-the-cuff comment with a reporter.
To your broader point - I think skepticism about the efficacy of the Covid vaccine is a very different (and rapidly evolving) thing than traditional anti-vaxx rhetoric.
If you don't think public trust has declined - why did fewer than 50% of people who got 2 doses go on to get a booster? What changed for them?
People are lazy.
And I think OP is implying that a totally incorrect statement erodes trust, even if you were just trying to persuade people to take the vaccine.
fwiw I did not notice any long-term side effects from my three Pfizer shots, nor did anyone I personally know.
I find it fascinating that on HN anecdata that conforms with the vaccine being dangerous is totally accepted, but anecdata about people getting very sick from COVID are either considered lies or statistical outliers.
My favorite is the 12 year old girl who's in a wheelchair now, what's yours?
However, I will state I don’t believe the entirety of people not getting vaccines can be on fearmongering and ignorance. It is true that there has been contradictory public statements in a way that eroded trust in future statements, for example I remember there was plenty of positioning early on that vaccines provide immunity to disease in general and not just to severe disease. Of course this was prior to evidence of waning antibodies and virus escaping immunity, but now that those are well documented it makes having trusted the vaccines to provide complete immunity to seem foolish.
At this point the vax we had is for something that doesn’t exist anymore. There is no long lasting natural resistance. We need new tech and widespread adoption. If people are going to go out symptomatic and infected and spread an r=17.5 virus, and there really is nothing we can do to stop them, we need much better tech to save us.
Latest: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
"This work provides further evidence of sustained immune response in children up to 1 year after primary SARS-CoV-2 infection."
More details on the mechanism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34030176 "Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans."
Follow the science. There is no need to panic.
Some occasional subway crud but when you catch COVID over and over again you lose weeks of your life. Also Because colds don’t cause long term damage, blood clots, etc.
This isn’t another cold. It could be mild, or you could wind up with complications from blood clots and inflammation for the next year, more…
That losing your taste? That’s brain damage, buster. Yeah just a cold…
If you are to insult people's intelligence then don't use your own germophobic anecdotal perception of the world as a credible epidemiological source.
> Unless we get proper proper sterilizing vaccines, the world is going to be in a cycle of getting sick from it every few months.
I get it that you're not familiar with most respiratory viruses.
> I am tired of the selfishness of people having an attitude that it’s not a big deal.
Imposing a medical procedure for your own safety is also a form of selfishness that lead to abuse in the recent past (see Jacobson v. Massachusetts and how it lead to Buck v. Bell)
> There is no long lasting natural resistance. We need new tech and widespread adoption.
Coronaviruses are know to change very quickly and this is why they escape immunity. Tech is not magic and won't change that fact of life. A universal coronavirus vaccine is a pipe dream.
So what are we going do? Big city life is going to be unbelievably poor unless we solve this problem.
The latest number he posted, from July 3, was 6.5% [1]. This means roughly 1 in 15 people you come across in San Francisco is positive for Covid. If you're on a crowded bus or train car, there will be multiple Covid positive people on it, and likely one that is contagious. If you regularly take transit and aren't wearing a really excellent mask, it's pretty likely you'll catch it over the course of a month or two.
Back to anecdotes, about 70% of the people I know that fit this description and ride transit in a big city without a mask have gotten symptomatic Covid in the past 3 months. All of them boosted btw.
[1] https://twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1543780608744165376
Really, going out in public is quite a risk these days. The sheer number of infected all around you is quite troubling.
I’m no anti-vaxxer. I had it, got vaxxed anyway just in case, wore my masks, etc. Like most people, I’m done now. If you want to go live in a bubble be my guest.
It’s about humanity and a painful existence of pestilence. You might be “done” with it. Humanity is not. Virus is not.
A bubble is ignoring one of the greatest threats to our civilization today.
We could just vaccinate our way until Covid transmission rates fall enough that we don't have to worry about it. Congrats on living in the middle of nowhere, but that's a bubble of a different sort.
Got it this week, in my 40’s, it sucks and I haven’t been sick for 3 years.
Both times I had two full weeks of extremely high fevers and I was the most fatigued I’ve ever been in my life, to the point where it was an incredible challenge to feed myself or go to the bathroom. The first time my around my lungs hurt enough where I could barely take a full breath and I developed a cough so bad I couldn’t really talk for at least a few weeks after the infection waned.
Granted, I have a really crappy immune system and I always get colds when exposed to someone sick and they hit me hard for at least a week with another week or two of symptoms. That said, your experience isn’t everyone’s.
I had it 1.5 years ago. I just got another blood test and the IgG antibodies are still strong.
All kinds of possible explanations.
It's been theorised to reduce severe illness and death (and it's very plausible it might!) but afaict that's never actually been measured.
Vaccination is a public health program.
If vaccinating under fives reduces the risk to preschool carers and enables us to maintain higher preschool capacity then that's a public benefit that has nothing. to do with whether it affects the individual outcomes of five year olds who contract covid.
On the other hand we occasionally lose an entire classroom of kids to a mass shooting, but a significant part of society tells us that we can’t do anything to restrict gun ownership to reduce that risk because apparently the ‘greater good’ of mass unrestricted gun ownership is more important.
We're talking about interfacing with an incredibly varied and complicated system in the human body. Just because we have implementations that have worked spledidly in the past, doesnt mean that every new instance of the class "vaccine" should immediately get to ride on the coattails of the others.
Maybe these vaccines are a miracle as a lot of people believe. But this mindset of "it carries the same name as these other products, so it must be fine" is an incredibly vulnerable one to have for future drug products.
> If vaccinating under fives reduces the risk to preschool carers and enables us to maintain higher preschool capacity
I agree, but this is also not known.
Any broader public health benefits are theoretical at this point. They don't seem to have been measured or even modelled.
By laying everything out plainly, I believe more people would have gotten vaccinated.
They're used to trying to distill unbelievably complex issues down to an actionable, one-sentence recommendation for everyone. For most things that's fine, but during a global pandemic people want to know a bit more.
>- Only 30% of the 5-11 year old population has had 2 doses
And yet I bet we all here (in the US; I hear that other countries haven't bothered, seeing no need based on the raw statistics) have seen/heard news stories in which parents are quoted as being pleased that their little ones can finally be vaccinated. Were parents who saw no need quoted? Yeah, I didn't hear any either.
Yet another example of The Narrative(TM) being pushed, regardless of the facts on the ground.
'Many'. No percentage. Just many.
https://www.army.mil/article/252890/preclinical_studies_supp...
Seems like an odd omission for someone so (literally) invested in the space.
https://countercurrents.org/2022/06/cuba-and-china-file-pate...
The cynic in me says there is huge interest in having an annual Covid vaccine like the flu one. They'll just change spike proteins every year in a never ending game of cat and mouse. With mRNA that game is easy and profitable.
Long story short, I don't want to go through that every 6 months.
(NB: posting this purely for the benefit of anyone else reading Ekaros's posts and thinking they have any sort point at all).
And also demonized Australia - "fascist"! "authoritarian"! - for being 6 months behind in COVID and still giving a shit when the USA already didn't. For us in Australia, early 2020 was 6 months of the USA looking like a disaster movie while almost noone had it here.
Basically, you’re entitled for compensation if you’re in Australia and was forced to get a COVID-19 vaccine and had moderate to severe vaccine-related adverse events.
This is specific to the current covid vaccines. It's a valid point for highly effective vaccines like the polio vaccine which should be mandatory.
What if the institutions mandating vaccines have a conflict of interest?
Very few people are actually so selfish or ignorant that they would not get an effective vaccine.
Sorry to hear about the experience :(
If you have reason to believe your body can't tolerate the mRNA vaccines, some alternatives to discuss with a GP might include
* Evushield -- pre exposure prophylaxis if you're at risk and the mainline vaccines don't work
* Paxlovid -- get outcomes comparable to conventionally vaccinated people if you take shortly after infection, beware "rebound" / second course, metallic taste and a lot of poop
* Monoclonal antibodies after confirmed infection -- probably bebtelovimab right? Hard to keep a handle on this with variants.
* Indoor air quality -- try to shop at businesses that have 3+ air changes per hour of MERV13+ filtered or outdoor air (there are healthy building stickers like LEED but they haven't really taken off)
* Rely on others' immunity -- I'm still unsure whether vaccinated people are less contagious? If so even if you're medically unable to participate in vaccination, other people are protecting you in aggregate
* Just accept the possibility of a painful death in the future -- it could happen for any of us right? Who knows? We live with lots of risks.
We should totally pause on the rollout of the vaccine, while we do a proper risk assessment on that.
Because on the one hand, we have the risk that unchecked spread of the disease will lead to more dangerous mutations and we could be faced with a complete collapse of healthcare capacity as it is overwhelmed by severe cases.
And on the other, a handful of people might yawn a lot.
In fact that risk balance is too tricky to be left up to the experts. Individuals should do their own personal risk assessment, based on how annoying they find it to yawn, versus how much hospital capacity they assume is available in their region.
No wonder we’re still in this damn pandemic.
All of these vaccines are cheap.
The vaccines which nobody is taking and cost under $20 are worth pharma companies engaging in secret underhanded methods to hurt other vaccines (even though all their FDA filings and research are mostly public).
Per-dose cost is meaningless. Now do “multi billion dollar government paid for contracts”.
Merck stock (no vaccine) had the exact same return as Pfizer over the past 5 years.
Now Moderna is up 800%, so maybe look their way if you are concerned about a conspiracy.
The vaccines are arguably being marketed to people for whom its more expensive than its worth: the young and healthy.
Can you point me again to Pfizer's public data about the mRNA trials? Because I'm pretty sure it was never shared.
You're posting an excessive amount of fear mongering in this thread.
> You're posting an excessive amount of fear mongering in this thread.
Funny that quite a few actual doctors subscribe to my fear mongering as they signed this request. Ever wondered if your point is valid?
You think the FDA is going to make a decision about a vaccine without a preregistered, public, clinical trial?
And I think it's more than a billion people...
Not if you have to take them several times a year until the end of your life
Let me do the math...
$0+$0 = $0
Seems pretty cheap to me.
Maybe if you mean for gov who pays, but even then, in terms of health care budget, its still quite cheap, to the point that optimizing on price seems like the wrong thing to do right now.
Anyway, you might be interested in Novavax if you're looking for a nice, classic covid vaccine. It's not any more effective than the mRNA vaccines, but it's FDA-approved.
It's truly shocking that we're not doing more to reduce car dependency.
- Why in movies college is seen as peak of life? Because if you live in a suburb that's the last time you are going to be around new people in general. Rest of your life is going to be in isolated house, isolated car, and some workmates.
- Why car was/is seen as a symbol of freedom? Need to buy milk? drive 10 miles in that direction, need to go to gym? drive 8 miles in that direction.
- Why guns are so valuable? If you live in middle of nowhere cops aren't coming on time..
- Why going to church is so big? Well that's the last place left to socialize after college, that and walmart.
(Sorry, that came off snarkier than I intended. Online ordering of food just kind of outsources the driving, doesn’t reduce it. Different maybe for delivery trucks that serve multiple houses per trip.)
In one state 34% of traffic fatalities involved alcohol. So Uber may do more for that than grocery delivery.
Grocery delivery drivers may also be better drivers because drive more often. Or, they may be overworked and rushing to complete deliveries.
https://cdan.dot.gov/query could probably return something useful if poked long enough.
And if you say walk or bike or bus you clearly have very different shopping than I do - let me see you carry 2 cases of 15 bottles of seltzer, and a cart full of groceries on any of those.
Normal sized supermarkets are in the range of 5 or so miles apart.
I am not interested in living in a place where tiny stores are my only option.
Also, why would I want to waste my time walking 20 minutes multiple times a week, plus time in the store? That sounds dreadful, why would you want that?
Also, while I like the sidewalk robot pod things and flying delivery drones, I legitimately like the idea of delivering stuff with PVC pipes and little electric pods. A little on the small side for groceries, but seems pretty doable without adding congestion or noise (to surface streets or the air). https://i.pipedreamlabs.co/
https://www.gao.gov/blog/during-covid-19-road-fatalities-inc...
- you need a license - you usually need insurance - there are a large amount of laws dedicated to driving - there are often dedicated police to enforce those law - cars themselves have a huge number of mandated safely systems Etc
It's normal that something causing so much death would have a large amount of regulation
Even taking the vaccine is merely on the level of inconvenience. After billions of dollars, the scaremongering horror stories about "side effects" and "long term effects" have of course never eventuated.
Road deaths? We choose the convenience of driving (sometimes at unsafe high speeds, sometimes drunk) over the deaths that result.
Even guns. The very idea that someone with mental health issues shouldn't be able to just go and buy a semi-automatic assault rifle is an inconvenience deemed too onerous.
Gambling? For a small segment of the population gambling addiction is really devastating. Yet we're OK with casinos.
Same for alcoholism.
But 3,000 Americans die in a terrorist attack and we collectively absolutely lose our mind, launching two wars, directly and indirectly killing hundreds of thousands and spending trillions of dollars in the process.
3,000 people is about the peak of how many were dying to Covid every day during the height of the pandemic.
Think about that.
Never eventuated, like you mean Astrazeneca was never suspended in eighteen countries on three continents? and Nordics never suspended Moderna?
That never happened in your reality? Wild.
Moderna remains banned in the Nordics for boys/men under 30. NHS does NOT give AZ boosters, only mRNA. NHS will not give AZ for those under 40, only mRNA.
[1] https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/w...
[2] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavir...
Directly from the Finnish and British governments.
First link. Click on “vaccines for young people”: Moderna is still banned for boys/young men in Finland. They’ll only give you Pfizer.
The NHS link states exactly what I wrote in my comment too.
Why are you denying the official government sources? Follow the science and advice of competent authorities.
PS. I still don't see anything on the NHS site indicating there's any concern that AZ is harmful to those under 40.
FALSE. 20+ countries.
You apparently simply refuse to follow the science from credible authorities.
>But the risk of refusing it vastly outweighs that.
FALSE. Again, why are you refusing to follow the science?
UK's JCVI which is the official scientific body advising the UK govt, and staffed by internationally renowned immunologists and infectious disease specialists, recommended against universal vaccination to 12-15 year olds.
It was specifically due to the risk-benefit consideration, because the benefit is marginal and risks of infection in that age category are very low. [1]
This is the list of the prominent scientists who made those calls.
Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
Dr Kevin Brown (Public Health England)
Dr Rebecca Cordery (Public Health England)
Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)
Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)
Alison Lawrence (lay member)
Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)
on the NHS website I linked: "if you're pregnant or under 40 you'll usually be offered appointments for the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines"
Notice how AZ is NOT offered first to those under 40. Did you expect something like: "WARNING. AZ WILL KILL YOU"?
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vacc...
That's why certain vaccines are NOT given to certain populations. That's precisely why JCVI declined to recommend, it was based on RISK vs benefit considerations.
Because we know. In an emergency, in a global pandemic, a recommendation AGAINST universal vaccination isn't taken lightly, and you seem to imply you know better than JCVI?
lol.
The benefit-to-risk ratio may well be quite low for particular vaccines with particular age groups. Again, that's not the same as saying particular vaccines are "harmful". By any reasonable definition all the vaccines we have are extremely safe, and for anyone with a typical chance of contracting COVID and having it develop into a serious illness, I can't see why you wouldn't choose any of them.
My contribution: I think we have been destroying trust systematically for so long that people are losing their sanity. Finally it is time to rethink our foundations and stop coercing. Currently there are various things that take trust for granted and they will need to become a great deal more persuasive if they want to retain their status moving forward (examples include: governments, currrencies, science, etc. - basically central coordination built on a foundation of coercion, science was the last bastion but the "education system" has become a certification system).
Was there some massive scandalous plague of side effects caused by a carelessly approved vaccine that I missed?
Politicized media and partisan pundits (both pro and online commenters) reduced nuance of vax research showing both R and outcomes effects to ‘it doesn’t work’ or ‘it makes you impervious’, both of which resulted in people ignoring other simple measures either from lack of faith or too much faith.
From there, inevitable discussions like these threads.
Did they not?
I mean, I'm pretty sure that before we had vaccines, we had much higher hospitalization and mortality rates, and now we have partial vaccine coverage, things are quite a lot better.
Is it your position that vaccines shouldn't have been offered?
... have somehow reached the conclusion that the vaccine which did them no harm whatsoever, and is responsible for their being likely to have a very mild case of the disease, was not safe or effective?
Why on earth have they reached that conclusion?
Astrazeneca was suspended in eighteen countries across three continents. Nordic countries pulled Moderna.
"no harm"? really?
That's why they are either limited or outright banned for certain populations.
Moderna remains banned in the Nordics for boys/men under 30. NHS does NOT give AZ boosters, only mRNA. NHS will not give AZ for those under 40, only mRNA.
Follow the science below:
[1] https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases-and-vaccinations/w...
[2] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavir...
What would you need them to do to increase trust?
No, that's never going to happen, and never was going to happen. Even the FDA presenters to VRBPAC (Peter Marks? Can't remember exactly) admit it. That's even without spillover and spillback between humans, deer, cats, etc. This type of virus is absolutely not a candidate for eradication, even the most optimistic predictions from before the pandemic would have required the periodic stamping out of spillover related outbreaks across the world for the foreseeable future.
The constant lies about the so-called efficacy of the vaccines, and the fact that they are perfectly safe, when they aren't? And let's not forget the complete propaganda from the CDC/WHO as if they were the only ones allowed to talk about vaccines.
But that doesn't explain why you don't trust them.
You're using the fact that you believed a lot of anti-vaccine arguments as support for why you... chose to believe a lot of anti-vaccine arguments.
Are they all populated exclusively by anti-vaxxers?
I dont consider these shots to be "vaccines" (if those are vaccines than aspirin is a vaccine as well, words don't have any meaning anymore), so you can already drop the anti-vaccine etiquette.
The debate about the actual medical benefits of the vaccine are almost irrelevant at this point.
What did you need to see from those in power that would have maintained or built that trust?
Having transparent, open, equity-based discussions about costs & benefits
Frequent, honest, humble admitting of mistakes
That decision has only seemed better supported as time has gone on, yet I still have to desperately avoid the topic in polite conversation if I don't want your average person to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions about me. There was also the risk to my livelihood from employer mandates.
I would have to see them go back and say "hey, that wasn't a deplorable decision, and we're sorry for encouraging everyone to think terrible things about you for making it."
I understand the noble lie argument, it just means that now I can't feel comfortable taking anything that comes out of public health at face value.
Doubling down on failed lockdown policy long after it was known to be ineffective and hurt more people than it helped. Profiteering off of the pandemic crisis. Rampant censorship of people who turned out be correct and were trying to warn us.
If they knew that there was something wrong with the vaccine, I expect them to lie about it, and censor and coerce whistle blowers into silence. They have demonstrated their eagerness to do so over the last two years.
So what good is the word of "the science" about how effective vaccines are? These are the same people that told us that we should trust the Chinese government.
> What did you need to see from those in power that would have maintained or built that trust?
Absolute transparency. Admitting that they made mistakes and committing to avoiding those mistakes in the future with meaningful policy changes. Reparations paid to those who were needlessly harmed by their mistakes.
At the very least, something like the settlements from toxic waste dumping coverups would be a good start.
And nobody has been harmed on the order of the victims of toxic waste dumping.
You seem to be assuming that the vaccination programs that have been given to millions of people globally have had some kind of devastating consequences: mass disabilities, cancers and reproductive harms…
But, they haven’t, have they?
Not just were people's lives ruined by sloppy and corrupt government pandemic policies, but communities were shattered. The rich got way richer, and working class people were thrown into poverty. And it was so avoidable. Our decision makers at different layers were either corrupt and using the pandemic a cover to profiteer and consolidate power, or they were just incompetent and didn't enact effective policy.
They should be held accountable. They should have to face some kind of justice. Again, look to how corporations that were found to be engaging in illegal pollution were dealt with as a good starting point. Assets should be seized, arrests made. Ideally trusts can be set up to try to repair the damage done to people and communities. People that concealed information about the pandemic should be arrested and tried.
and yet they kept at it for two years.
"What destroys trust?" is an abstract question, social media is a factor but not the only one.
Stop counting simple deaths. Instead count years of life lost vs average life expectancy.
Do you feel comfortable acknowledging that this metric in isolation could result in trading years across age demographics? To what degree does it matter if we take 1 year of life from a child and give it to a middle aged person, doing exactly that would be fairly neutral according to QALY.
The real issue with QUALYs is that it discounts the lives of disabled folks because they might never be 100% "healthy".
Okay, so lets change the dilemma from 1:1 to 1 child life-year traded for 2 adult-life-years. Did it get any better?
Sounds like we agree: QALY is not where we should hang our medical ethics.
That probably doesn’t matter much to either a child or a middle aged person, to be honest, since neither of them has much idea of exactly how many years they have left.
It probably matters quite a lot more to a 78 year old, though.
I’m pretty sure we’re talking about public health measures that - if successful- will reduce covid risks for everyone.
And if we have to save the lives of a bunch of 90 year olds in order to also save the lives of some kids, we’ll that is a risk I am willing to take.
If you want kids to go to preschools, and not be little disease vectors transmitting infection between households, you should be looking for ways to avoid them acquiring the infection even if the disease has no ill effects on them personally.
Having their parents or grandparents hospitalized are also negative outcomes for a child.
I remember reading very early in COVID how experts said finding a vaccine would be very difficult because we've never been able to generate long lasting immunity to corona viruses. And they were hoping COVID would be different.
Turns out - it's not different.
I think your idea is what OP is discussing with “universal COVID vaccines” — generating broad immunity that new variants can’t escape so quickly.
no, that's just the most that could be achieved. The ideal, which is long lasting immunity, is not quite achievable atm (it seems).
I'd definitely accept reduction in severity, but would hope for a life long immunity.
Long lived immunity against severe disease, driven by the T cell response against epitopes that are generally well preserved (>80% for spike protein, ~98% for non spike protein) [1]
≠
Immunity against infection, conferred by circulating neutralizing antibody, which last for a couple of months
Most vaccines blunt or prevent disease but not infection.
"CDC: Nearly 60% of Americans have natural COVID-19 antibodies from prior infection"
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3827106-nearly-60-of-americans...
I know parents of young children who are extremely disappointed that it took less than a year to trial and approve the first COVID-19 vaccine for adults, and then a full year and a half to trial and approve the first COVID-19 vaccine for children under 5.
Even the approved one that exists today barely does anything. There were a ton of attempts before that that simply straight out didn't work.
Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford)
Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals)
Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford)
Dr Kevin Brown (Public Health England)
Dr Rebecca Cordery (Public Health England)
Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust)
Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick)
Alison Lawrence (lay member)
Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital)
Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol)
Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands)
Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen)
Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London)
Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol)
Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals)
But seeing your further reply, you are serious? I'm really having a hard time believing that. You can't possibly be serious, can you?
Good vaccines are difficult to make, but there's no doubt that a well-tested and approved vaccine saves lives. We don't have polio or smallpox today, thanks to vaccines.
I made the decision not to get the COVID vaccine. I have had COVID twice, confirmed with positive testing. I self-quarantined both times. I was quite tired and slept a lot during both infections. I am definitely on the list of those with co-morbidities. I don't have "long COVID", but my partner definitely does. I don't discount COVID, it's a serious flu, and various flu infections kill a lot of people every year.
**
In the early 90's, in the run-up to the first Gulf war, military personnel were widely asked to volunteer for an experimental vaccine. We were told this was an anti-anthrax vaccine, necessary because it was believed (or so we were told) that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of anthrax-based biological weaponry. Those who were deployed weren't given the option, but those who did not deploy were asked to volunteer.
I did not volunteer. Some weeks after the call for volunteers went out, my Navy section non-commissioned officer (LPO) told me that I was required to volunteer. I disagreed, saying that was an order not voluntary. I was then told that I was ordered to volunteer, and that I'd be court-martialed if I did not volunteer. Now this is shitty, but when you sign up for the military, you sign up for stuff like this whether you like it or not. I don't know if I could have successfully fought this, but it seemed like a bad idea, so I agreed that I would "volunteer". I was then ordered to sign a paper stating that I had "volunteered" for the shot of my own free will. I refused this initially, but I got called out again by my leadership and threatened with court-martial if I refused an order to sign the paper. I was a scared 19-year-old, and didn't know if I had legal grounds or not, so in the end, I agreed to sign.
I wish I had never signed that paper. I wish I'd had the courage to tell my leadership to take me to court-martial. After I got the shot, I got sick. Constantly. I got sick again and again, taking weeks to get better between each bout. Fever, chills, headache, it was like a flu that went on for months. It was so bad at one point that my chief petty officer sent me to bed for a week, even when Navy medical refused me any treatment beyond Ibuprofen. This condition affected me on-and-off for well over a year.
Many years later, I read about "Gulf War Syndrome." I read of government claims of exposure to chemical agents while deployed - except that I never deployed to Iraq, and neither did thousands of others with symptoms. I truly believe that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by a chemical agent our own government deployed, in the form of a vaccine that I "volunteered" for, and thus have no recourse against my own government.
When I see my own government telling me that I "have" to get another experimental vaccine, a vaccine that cannot prevent transmission or infection from COVID, a vaccine that no one can be held liable for problems, and that same government threatening me with loss of public access, threatening me with "vaccine passes", pushing companies to exclude me from the job market unless I comply, I have this to say:
GO F** YOURSELVES
I won't ever "volunteer" again.
EDIT: I would also like to state that other than this one blot on the record, I greatly enjoyed my time in the military. I got to visit places I'm unlikely to see ever again, was given enormous responsibility, and had a job I truly enjoyed (most of the time). I met great people, and felt good about my contributions.
Of course, the people who were forced to do all these unfortunate things should have godtier medical care for life, and the V.A.'s performance has been an absolute disgrace.
real vaccines stop you from getting infected, spreading the disease or having symptoms, what's again efficacy of these vaccines at least against asymptomatic COVID? since we abandoned the idea that vaccines slow spread in any way...
Why would you get vaxxed if you are healthy person and your vaccination doesn't help anyone but you?
For the record in 11M Czechia 40K people died WITH COVID (that includes car accident victims, terminally ill patients it anyone enlisted in hospital who had to get tested) in more than 2 years, less than 1% of them were under 44. [1]
[1] https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19/prehledy-khs