|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
If you are worried that the upcoming coronavirus vaccines aren't going to be safe because their research, manufacturing, and distribution have been dangerously rushed just to get a half-assed drug out on the market... this is simply not the case. The medical community has not only put a huge amount of resources behind these treatments (with all the appropriate trials and testing), but have allowed the mass production of these medicines to jump to the front of the line, due to our global pandemic.
This doesn't mean that they're overlooking potential issues; it just means that the creation of these vaccines don't have to wait in line behind hundreds of other medicines for other diseases and disorders to receive the resources and lab time they need. Even newly proposed cancer treatments are taking a backseat to make sure the safe coronavirus vaccines are being expedited. This is less a matter of ignoring due diligence, and more a matter of getting to see what maximum efficiency would look like if certain immunizations were able to progress at their own pace, without needing to wait in line for months or even years behind everything else going on in the research community.
I'm fortunate enough to have several friends in this space, and while they're frustrated that their own work is taking longer than usual, since they need to make way for coronavirus vaccines, they also understand the urgency of this situation.
|
On December 08 2020 05:27 Artisreal wrote:
Imo discussions about vaccines, being politicised or not, are a core part of this thread.
This is a politicised issue, but in the core a scientific one that shouldn't be drowned out by politics.
I think that if we did research of how government handled convid and the rate of convid cases I think u can see a correlation. It would prove that politics have impact on convid. From what I read the contries that mishandled convid from leadership perspective US, UK and Brazil is among hardest effected. Think it is right to discuss it in convid thread from my point of view the way a leader like Trump will lead to tusind of deaths if not hundred of tusind. Is it political yes is it regarding convid yes. Can you ignore stupid politics in post about convid no u can't.
|
Ty for the links!
I like numbers and there are a few interesting numbers.
Not from the links on the previous page but i got these numbers i think from the cdc website (though i can not find them anymore). Rough numbers to simplify it a bit,feel free to correct them and point out any mistakes!
Test group 40k people. 20k of those 40k people got the vaccine and 20k got a placebo.
They did open the box at 200 infections which was reached 2 weeks after the 2nd vaccination.
Of those 200 infections 190 where in the control group and 10 where in the vaccine group which gives the 95% efficiancy.
The thing that i find remarkable is the speed at which 200 infections where reached. The 190 infections in the control group where reached 2 weeks after the booster in a group of 20k people. This gives a spreading speed of close to 1% every 2 weeks or ~25% a year.
This is a much faster spread then we have witnessed in most western countries even when taking into account undetected infections. According to my own estimates based on the numbers that have been available throughout the year the speed of spread in most of europe is maybe halve of that,around 12.5% a year.
In some hot spots the spread has gone a lot faster,10% was reached in some areas in italy already in the first wave which took maybe 4 months since the first infection. The testing group beeing in a hotspot is a possible explanation of the fast spread and i remember reading they wanted to test in areas where the spread was high to quickly get enough data so that could be an explanation.
Still this number (25% a year) i do find somewhat puzzling.
The rna vaccine i do believe is safe. The doubts i have are mostly about its efficiancy and the duration of immunity. The first 2 weeks on which the 95% efficiency is based is obviously a very short timeframe. Though as i understand they will keep tracking the groups so that numbers about long term efficiancy should become available evetually.
There is another thing that i noticed but maybe i do understand it wrong.
From this link https://www.phgfoundation.org/briefing/rna-vaccines :
An RNA vaccine consists of an mRNA strand that codes for a disease-specific antigen. Once the mRNA strand in the vaccine is inside the body’s cells, the cells use the genetic information to produce the antigen.
This seems different from the vaccines which have now been develloped. Those vaccines dont directly stimulate a cell to produce an antigen. Instead they stimulate the cell to produce the spike proteine which will then stimulate other cells to produce an antigen against the spike proteine.
Is this a fundamental different aproach when compared to earlier attempts to create mrna vaccines or am i misunderstanding this/reading to much into this?
@below:ah that makes sense ty! I was wondering if i did misunderstood it.
I thought the antigen was that what the other cells produce as a reaction to the spike proteine (i basicly thought antigen and antibody where the same).
|
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your question, but I believe the spike protein is the antigen. An antigen is the thing an antibody binds to. So the sequence is:
1) Vaccine puts mRNA into cell.
2) mRNA is translated by the cell into antigen (in this case, spike protein or some analog of it)
3) Your body creates antibodies against the antigen, thus providing immunity.
|
Antigen as far as I know is the definition of any bindable protein on a cell's surface.
Conventional vaccines put an inert pathogen into you, and the immune response adapts by producing antibodies against their key antigens. The concept has been proven reliable (while I don't have the knowledge atm to claim that there could or could not be more severe side-effects), and nowhere do I intend to dispute that.
The new vaccine aims at putting a virus' key antigen onto your own cell's surface, which at glance to me seems like an insane thing to do. I'd also like to point out that there is way more types of RNA in our cells than just the ones involved in translating genetic code to proteins, and one shouold not necessarily expect it to be fully understood.
|
Some good news about Pfizer's vaccine:
The efficacy after one dose is around 89% and the second dose bumps that to 95%. It makes sense to use Pfizer's as fast as possible, and just inject everyone you can, when you can. Prioritize people for the second dose where possible, so that they get their full course, but even if a shortage comes up later, those that got the first dose are in better shape than they were prior to vaccination.
Now, new documents reveal that the vaccine has an 88.9 efficacy rate following just one dose. The FDA released the documents ahead of a Dec. 10 meeting between the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vaccines and the Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to discuss emergency use authorization for the vaccine.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/529216-pfizers-vaccine-is-given-in-two-doses-but-fda
|
Are there any special demographics that haven't yet been approved to take the vaccines once they're available? For example, I don't know if children are cleared to take them yet.
|
On December 09 2020 10:38 Lmui wrote:Some good news about Pfizer's vaccine: The efficacy after one dose is around 89% and the second dose bumps that to 95%. It makes sense to use Pfizer's as fast as possible, and just inject everyone you can, when you can. Prioritize people for the second dose where possible, so that they get their full course, but even if a shortage comes up later, those that got the first dose are in better shape than they were prior to vaccination. Show nested quote +Now, new documents reveal that the vaccine has an 88.9 efficacy rate following just one dose. The FDA released the documents ahead of a Dec. 10 meeting between the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vaccines and the Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to discuss emergency use authorization for the vaccine. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/529216-pfizers-vaccine-is-given-in-two-doses-but-fda
Where's the medical journal source in the article?
How do you ethically expose people to Coronavirus after vaccination?
What's the detection method for infection when you're producing a part of the virus and hopefully not testing for that?
|
On December 09 2020 10:46 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 10:38 Lmui wrote:Some good news about Pfizer's vaccine: The efficacy after one dose is around 89% and the second dose bumps that to 95%. It makes sense to use Pfizer's as fast as possible, and just inject everyone you can, when you can. Prioritize people for the second dose where possible, so that they get their full course, but even if a shortage comes up later, those that got the first dose are in better shape than they were prior to vaccination. Now, new documents reveal that the vaccine has an 88.9 efficacy rate following just one dose. The FDA released the documents ahead of a Dec. 10 meeting between the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vaccines and the Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to discuss emergency use authorization for the vaccine. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/529216-pfizers-vaccine-is-given-in-two-doses-but-fda Where's the medical journal source in the article? How do you ethically expose people to Coronavirus after vaccination?What's the detection method for infection when you're producing a part of the virus and hopefully not testing for that?
Isn't this handled the same way for every potential vaccine, regardless of the disease? How do they normally deal with that? Surely this is nothing new?
|
On December 09 2020 10:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are there any special demographics that haven't yet been approved to take the vaccines once they're available? For example, I don't know if children are cleared to take them yet.
Children are not cleared. I saw some reports that late teens were starting to be trialed, but I would guess that it would probably be at least a year before you'd see vaccination programs in schools.
On December 09 2020 10:46 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 10:38 Lmui wrote:Some good news about Pfizer's vaccine: The efficacy after one dose is around 89% and the second dose bumps that to 95%. It makes sense to use Pfizer's as fast as possible, and just inject everyone you can, when you can. Prioritize people for the second dose where possible, so that they get their full course, but even if a shortage comes up later, those that got the first dose are in better shape than they were prior to vaccination. Now, new documents reveal that the vaccine has an 88.9 efficacy rate following just one dose. The FDA released the documents ahead of a Dec. 10 meeting between the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vaccines and the Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to discuss emergency use authorization for the vaccine. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/529216-pfizers-vaccine-is-given-in-two-doses-but-fda Where's the medical journal source in the article? How do you ethically expose people to Coronavirus after vaccination? What's the detection method for infection when you're producing a part of the virus and hopefully not testing for that?
Ethical exposure is just letting them go on with their daily lives, albeit with regular checkins. Same as almost every other vaccine ever made in the last few decades.
Detection method is looking for virus itself, not anti-bodies for it. Vaccinated people should have no traces of the virus once the vaccine course has run.
|
On December 09 2020 10:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 10:46 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2020 10:38 Lmui wrote:Some good news about Pfizer's vaccine: The efficacy after one dose is around 89% and the second dose bumps that to 95%. It makes sense to use Pfizer's as fast as possible, and just inject everyone you can, when you can. Prioritize people for the second dose where possible, so that they get their full course, but even if a shortage comes up later, those that got the first dose are in better shape than they were prior to vaccination. Now, new documents reveal that the vaccine has an 88.9 efficacy rate following just one dose. The FDA released the documents ahead of a Dec. 10 meeting between the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vaccines and the Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to discuss emergency use authorization for the vaccine. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/529216-pfizers-vaccine-is-given-in-two-doses-but-fda Where's the medical journal source in the article? How do you ethically expose people to Coronavirus after vaccination?What's the detection method for infection when you're producing a part of the virus and hopefully not testing for that? Isn't this handled the same way for every potential vaccine, regardless of the disease? How do they normally deal with that? Surely this is nothing new?
On the fly, following the information from CDC, leading to a webpage called historyofvaccines, which surely is totally unbiased (/sarc.), there is no clear guidance on that. Most knowledge about conventional ones was probably derived from simple trial and error, and since they worked several decades ago even without full understanding of the mechanisms, replicating the method of vaccination for the virus of choice was sufficient.
What I can say is that there can't be an ethical way to do that. A vaccine would be proven ineffective when catching the disease anyway after administration, and that would invalidate the assumption of its efficacy.
So I'm left wondering where those newspapers get these really promising figures so quickly, if not from in-vitro-testing of freshly inoculated/vaccinated selected tissue, which is like saying your entire house would be fireproof because the sprinkler in your entrance is working.
|
On December 09 2020 10:46 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 10:38 Lmui wrote:Some good news about Pfizer's vaccine: The efficacy after one dose is around 89% and the second dose bumps that to 95%. It makes sense to use Pfizer's as fast as possible, and just inject everyone you can, when you can. Prioritize people for the second dose where possible, so that they get their full course, but even if a shortage comes up later, those that got the first dose are in better shape than they were prior to vaccination. Now, new documents reveal that the vaccine has an 88.9 efficacy rate following just one dose. The FDA released the documents ahead of a Dec. 10 meeting between the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vaccines and the Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to discuss emergency use authorization for the vaccine. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/529216-pfizers-vaccine-is-given-in-two-doses-but-fda Where's the medical journal source in the article? How do you ethically expose people to Coronavirus after vaccination? What's the detection method for infection when you're producing a part of the virus and hopefully not testing for that?
FDA documents as linked in the article:
https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee-december-10-2020-meeting-announcement#event-materials
Likely this one:
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
Dumbed down version - It's the same as any other vaccine. You don't. You vaccinate a population at risk and let them go about their lives.
Some of the hottest covid spots in the world have 1%+ of the population being infected on a weekly basis. As an example, if you vaccinate 10k people, and leave 5k placebo, you can reasonably expect around 50 covid cases/week in placebo, and around 100 infections in the 10k group per week, if the vaccine was ineffective. If the vaccine is effective, the case rate in the 10k group drops.
If after 3 weeks, the case rate in the placebo group is still ~50/week, while the case rate in the vaccinated group is 5/week, then you've got a successful vaccine.
The vaccine doesn't produce the virus. so if a test can distinguish between the byproducts of the vaccine, vs the actual presence of the virus, you're good. I believe this is the case for all testing at the moment, but I could stand to be corrected here.
|
On December 09 2020 11:03 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 10:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2020 10:46 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2020 10:38 Lmui wrote:Some good news about Pfizer's vaccine: The efficacy after one dose is around 89% and the second dose bumps that to 95%. It makes sense to use Pfizer's as fast as possible, and just inject everyone you can, when you can. Prioritize people for the second dose where possible, so that they get their full course, but even if a shortage comes up later, those that got the first dose are in better shape than they were prior to vaccination. Now, new documents reveal that the vaccine has an 88.9 efficacy rate following just one dose. The FDA released the documents ahead of a Dec. 10 meeting between the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vaccines and the Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to discuss emergency use authorization for the vaccine. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/529216-pfizers-vaccine-is-given-in-two-doses-but-fda Where's the medical journal source in the article? How do you ethically expose people to Coronavirus after vaccination?What's the detection method for infection when you're producing a part of the virus and hopefully not testing for that? Isn't this handled the same way for every potential vaccine, regardless of the disease? How do they normally deal with that? Surely this is nothing new? On the fly, following the information from CDC, leading to a webpage called historyofvaccines, which surely is totally unbiased (/sarc.), there is no clear guidance on that. Most knowledge about conventional ones was probably derived from simple trial and error, and since they worked several decades ago even without full understanding of the mechanisms, replicating the method of vaccination for the virus of choice was sufficient. What I can say is that there can't be an ethical way to do that. A vaccine would be proven ineffective when catching the disease anyway after administration, and that would invalidate the assumption of its efficacy. So I'm left wondering where those newspapers get these really promising figures so quickly, if not from in-vitro-testing of freshly inoculated/vaccinated selected tissue, which is like saying your entire house would be fireproof because the sprinkler in your entrance is working.
Holy fucking shit you're a real anti-vaxxer.
But anyways, a vaccine is like a seatbelt. Yes, people will still die or be injured with seatbelts on. But with a large enough sample size, you can see that less people are hurt/die with it, than without.
|
On December 09 2020 11:00 Amui wrote:
Ethical exposure is just letting them go on with their daily lives, albeit with regular checkins. Same as almost every other vaccine ever made in the last few decades.
Detection method is looking for virus itself, not anti-bodies for it. Vaccinated people should have no traces of the virus once the vaccine course has run.
Find me a law anywhere that makes an exception for lockdowns and other restrictions for vaccinated people, I am currently not aware of such a thing. Is the vaccine effective if they are tested negative? Or if they are tested positive and symptomless?
You can't look for the virus itself in people (you can detect it in selected tissue under an electron microscope, but you'd have to know it's there by other means first), just parts of it. Vaccinated people will have traces of the virus, or rather, the antibodies against it. Humoral hepatitis detection is a good example to get insight into how that works.
On December 09 2020 11:08 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 11:03 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2020 10:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 09 2020 10:46 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2020 10:38 Lmui wrote:Some good news about Pfizer's vaccine: The efficacy after one dose is around 89% and the second dose bumps that to 95%. It makes sense to use Pfizer's as fast as possible, and just inject everyone you can, when you can. Prioritize people for the second dose where possible, so that they get their full course, but even if a shortage comes up later, those that got the first dose are in better shape than they were prior to vaccination. Now, new documents reveal that the vaccine has an 88.9 efficacy rate following just one dose. The FDA released the documents ahead of a Dec. 10 meeting between the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Vaccines and the Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to discuss emergency use authorization for the vaccine. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/529216-pfizers-vaccine-is-given-in-two-doses-but-fda Where's the medical journal source in the article? How do you ethically expose people to Coronavirus after vaccination?What's the detection method for infection when you're producing a part of the virus and hopefully not testing for that? Isn't this handled the same way for every potential vaccine, regardless of the disease? How do they normally deal with that? Surely this is nothing new? On the fly, following the information from CDC, leading to a webpage called historyofvaccines, which surely is totally unbiased (/sarc.), there is no clear guidance on that. Most knowledge about conventional ones was probably derived from simple trial and error, and since they worked several decades ago even without full understanding of the mechanisms, replicating the method of vaccination for the virus of choice was sufficient. What I can say is that there can't be an ethical way to do that. A vaccine would be proven ineffective when catching the disease anyway after administration, and that would invalidate the assumption of its efficacy. So I'm left wondering where those newspapers get these really promising figures so quickly, if not from in-vitro-testing of freshly inoculated/vaccinated selected tissue, which is like saying your entire house would be fireproof because the sprinkler in your entrance is working. Holy fucking shit you're a real anti-vaxxer. But anyways, a vaccine is like a seatbelt. Yes, people will still die or be injured with seatbelts on. But with a large enough sample size, you can see that less people are hurt/die with it, than without.
If for you a vaccine is a label you can apply to any methodology of inducing immunity, then yes, holy fucking shit I'm an anti-vaxxer. If you understood that this is a new paradigm in vaccination being applied on large scale for the first time, then no, I'm not a holy fucking shit anti-vaxxer, just a very skeptical person that doesn't use seatbelt analogies in biology.
|
On December 09 2020 11:13 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 11:00 Amui wrote:
Ethical exposure is just letting them go on with their daily lives, albeit with regular checkins. Same as almost every other vaccine ever made in the last few decades.
Detection method is looking for virus itself, not anti-bodies for it. Vaccinated people should have no traces of the virus once the vaccine course has run. Find me a law anywhere that makes an exception for lockdowns and other restrictions for vaccinated people, I am currently not aware of such a thing. Is the vaccine effective if they are tested negative? Or if they are tested positive and symptomless? You can't look for the virus itself in people (you can detect it in selected tissue under an electron microscope, but you'd have to know it's there by other means first), just parts of it. Vaccinated people will have traces of the virus, or rather, the antibodies against it. Humoral hepatitis detection is a good example to get insight into how that works.
"Go on with their daily lives" means that they're still following the same mask and social distancing guidelines as everyone else in their respective territories. According to the papers submitted to the FDA, (which you should definitely read through, btw, if you're so concerned about the study design of the trials), efficacy was assessed as follows:
Efficacy is being assessed throughout a participant’s follow-up in the study through surveillance for potential cases of COVID-19. If, at any time, a participant develops acute respiratory illness, an illness visit occurs. Assessments for illness visits include a nasal (midturbinate) swab, which is tested at a central laboratory using a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test (e.g., Cepheid; FDA authorized under EUA), or other sufficiently validated nucleic acid amplification-based test (NAAT), to detect SARS-CoV-2. The central laboratory NAAT result is used for the case definition, unless it is not possible to test the sample at the central laboratory. In that case, the following NAAT results are acceptable: Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR test (EUA200009/A001) Abbott Molecular/RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (EUA200023/A001).
So basically, when they feel sick, they get tested for Covid. It happened to be that more people out of the placebo group tested positive compared to that of the vaccinated group. For example, 192 positive cases from the placebo group and 8 positive cases from the vaccinated group. Page 24 of the document I linked has details on the efficacy studies.
And here's another paper from Pfizer submitted to the FDA meeting that has additional details.
|
On December 09 2020 10:38 Vivax wrote:
Antigen as far as I know is the definition of any bindable protein on a cell's surface.
Conventional vaccines put an inert pathogen into you, and the immune response adapts by producing antibodies against their key antigens. The concept has been proven reliable (while I don't have the knowledge atm to claim that there could or could not be more severe side-effects), and nowhere do I intend to dispute that.
The new vaccine aims at putting a virus' key antigen onto your own cell's surface, which at glance to me seems like an insane thing to do. I'd also like to point out that there is way more types of RNA in our cells than just the ones involved in translating genetic code to proteins, and one shouold not necessarily expect it to be fully understood.
Doesn’t have to be a protein, doesn’t have to be on the surface of a cell. There are people using all kinds of antibodies and all kinds of antigens for ELISA’s. It’s not magic, it’s just binding affinity.
Expect what to be fully understood? It’s not siRNA, it’s not tRNA, it’s mRNA. The data says it’s immunogenic, which means it is, in fact, being translated, and the body is forming antibodies against the produced protein.
Is your objection just “what if it does something else too?” Because that’s a question for literally every pharmaceutical product (or, for that matter, anything else we ingest). But if we have no reason to think it causes serious adverse events, and we’ve given it to tens of thousands of people, monitored them, and found no evidence of serious adverse events, then either they don’t exist, or they’re too rare to outweigh the benefits.
|
Vivax, the biology behind antigen presentation is very well understood. You don't get a pharma company like Moderna which specializes in this technology without some deep understanding of subject matter and how safe something like this is.
Viruses exploit your cells literally at every point in time of your existence. Infection mostly doesn't occurr because these infected cells can present parts of the virion on their cell surface which then get killed off. If infection occurs you get an adaptive response after x-days (i think it's around 4), which also heavily relies on antigent presentation.
mRNA is one of the intermediate molecules viruses use to replicate themselves, so were basically giving ourselves part of the virus which should, and apparently does, induce a lasting immune response.
If you can't get behind people spending their lives in trying to find alternative (and more often than not safer ways) for difficult to tackle problems for certain diseases (like how to immunize people for certain virus families - look at the HIV body of research done in the '80s for example), then I don't know what you can trust. They know infinitely more about biology than you and I ever will and they're surrounded by more people (that know infinitely more about biology than you or me) than you can count. They want what's best for you, not necessarily the big bux. That's what the marketing and financial departments of the companies are for.
|
On December 09 2020 18:13 Uldridge wrote:
If you can't get behind people spending their lives in trying to find alternative (and more often than not safer ways) for difficult to tackle problems for certain diseases (like how to immunize people for certain virus families - look at the HIV body of research done in the '80s for example), then I don't know what you can trust. They know infinitely more about biology than you and I ever will and they're surrounded by more people (that know infinitely more about biology than you or me) than you can count. They want what's best for you, not necessarily the big bux. That's what the marketing and financial departments of the companies are for.
I generally agree with the rest of what you were saying - the mechanism has enough scientific basis to be sound - but playing this appeal to authority is something of a bridge too far. I've seen plenty of frauds be defended with words not far from what you have given here, and a company with no history of successful vaccines making one now is worth being skeptical of. When their stock price so aggressively follows their vaccine development and is used to support a billion dollar capital raise and lots of executive stock sale is noted, the point about "it's not about the money" is a load of baloney. "Follow the money" is an important part of basic science R&D, a piece of due diligence that shouldn't be forgotten even in light of everything else that you may want to argue for.
All that said, "look at the results" is a more valid take than "dare you question their expertise?!?" Thankfully that seems to support that a good vaccine has been made, but don't be using that to make undue claims of unquestionable credibility or benevolence.
|
On December 08 2020 22:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
If you are worried that the upcoming coronavirus vaccines aren't going to be safe because their research, manufacturing, and distribution have been dangerously rushed just to get a half-assed drug out on the market... this is simply not the case. The medical community has not only put a huge amount of resources behind these treatments (with all the appropriate trials and testing), but have allowed the mass production of these medicines to jump to the front of the line, due to our global pandemic.
If governments would change the law to allow COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers to be legally and financially liable for any future COVID-19 vaccine related injuries or side effects then you'd mitigate a fuckload of worry from people.You're asking people to take a quickly developed, experimental mRNA (First mRNA vaccine approved for human use) vaccine where the manufacturer does not know the long term side effects and the patient has no legal recourse down the line.Thats the issue here.The rushed 1976 swine flu vaccine Guillain-Barre Syndrome outbreak could be a walk in the park compared to this, who knows.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN
China is now blaming Australian frozen meat imports for the original COVID outbreak in the Wuhan wet markets.This is a continuation of Chinas ongoing tension with Australia due to Australias vocal support of a WHO investigation into the outbreak.More Australian beef exporters have been banned bringing the total up to 7 exporters, add this to recent Chinese restrictions on Australian export of Wool, Barley, Wine, Lobsters to China.
https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/china-suggests-covid19-arrived-in-wuhan-via-frozen-meat-products-including-australian-steak/news-story/9eef3841f8c09e8033617b6b7b062d19
|
On December 09 2020 18:51 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2020 22:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
If you are worried that the upcoming coronavirus vaccines aren't going to be safe because their research, manufacturing, and distribution have been dangerously rushed just to get a half-assed drug out on the market... this is simply not the case. The medical community has not only put a huge amount of resources behind these treatments (with all the appropriate trials and testing), but have allowed the mass production of these medicines to jump to the front of the line, due to our global pandemic.
If governments would change the law to allow COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers to be legally and financially liable for any future COVID-19 vaccine related injuries or side effects then you'd mitigate a fuckload of worry from people.You're asking people to take a quickly developed, experimental mRNA (First mRNA vaccine approved for human use) vaccine where the manufacturer does not know the long term side effects and the patient has no legal recourse down the line.Thats the issue here.The rushed 1976 swine flu vaccine Guillain-Barre Syndrome outbreak could be a walk in the park compared to this, who knows.
You might mitigate some of the worrying, but that's obviously an absurd proposition. And I don't know what you mean by the G-B outbreak from swine flu's vaccine, since that was hardly a thing. The 1976 vaccine's common side effects (if any were experienced at all) were headache and tiredness and fever, which quickly subsided. Things like G-B had less than a 1 in 100,000 chance of happening. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/guillain-barre-syndrome.html
Also, keep in mind that this 1976 vaccine was a necessary response to a pandemic that was similar to the 1918 one that had killed over 50 million people. If we're comparing the disease to the vaccine - whether it's the 1976 swine flu or our current coronavirus crisis - the risks of the disease vs. the risks of the vaccinations aren't even in the same universe. We know what the short-term risks of coronavirus are, and god help us with the long-term risks... so the proposal that there might be a one-in-a-million chance that someone gets seriously ill years from now from the vaccination is not worth entertaining. There is always a chance of that happening, with anything, ever. I feel like some people are comparing the risks of a vaccine to some baseline of zero risk, as opposed to the risks of the real disease, which is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
