|
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. |
On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd.
Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs.
http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnant
You can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding.
|
Bisutopia19240 Posts
On December 25 2021 08:19 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd. Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnantYou can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding.
I’m more interested in the bigger discussion of potential other vaccines instead of of heeding advice about what my wife should do specifically with regards to the tools that exist. I do appreciate your response though.
|
On December 25 2021 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2021 08:19 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd. Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnantYou can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding. I’m more interested in the bigger discussion of potential other vaccines instead of of heeding advice about what my wife should do specifically with regards to the tools that exist. I do appreciate your response though.
That's fair.
New vaccines are primarily aimed at the developing world if I'll be honest.
Ideal solutions are oral route, or nasal inhaled vaccines rather than syringe, and stable for weeks, if not months at room temperature.
For western nations with the supply chain and distribution network to handle for example, Pfizer on release with the ridiculous cold chain, continuing to distribute what we have as efficiently as possible since we have highly effective, highly available vaccines is key. Elsewhere, that's not the case, and every step you take towards making it easier to distribute/administer is a step towards preventing covid from continuing to spread/mutate as readily as it is.
|
Bisutopia19240 Posts
On December 25 2021 11:12 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2021 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 08:19 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd. Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnantYou can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding. I’m more interested in the bigger discussion of potential other vaccines instead of of heeding advice about what my wife should do specifically with regards to the tools that exist. I do appreciate your response though. That's fair. New vaccines are primarily aimed at the developing world if I'll be honest. Ideal solutions are oral route, or nasal inhaled vaccines rather than syringe, and stable for weeks, if not months at room temperature. For western nations with the supply chain and distribution network to handle for example, Pfizer on release with the ridiculous cold chain, continuing to distribute what we have as efficiently as possible since we have highly effective, highly available vaccines is key. Elsewhere, that's not the case, and every step you take towards making it easier to distribute/administer is a step towards preventing covid from continuing to spread/mutate as readily as it is.
Did you read the article in regards to the army vaccine? It has success in preventing all strains of sars prior to Covid-19 and up to omicron. That sounds a world better then a third world budget vaccine.
|
On December 25 2021 11:34 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2021 11:12 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 08:19 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd. Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnantYou can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding. I’m more interested in the bigger discussion of potential other vaccines instead of of heeding advice about what my wife should do specifically with regards to the tools that exist. I do appreciate your response though. That's fair. New vaccines are primarily aimed at the developing world if I'll be honest. Ideal solutions are oral route, or nasal inhaled vaccines rather than syringe, and stable for weeks, if not months at room temperature. For western nations with the supply chain and distribution network to handle for example, Pfizer on release with the ridiculous cold chain, continuing to distribute what we have as efficiently as possible since we have highly effective, highly available vaccines is key. Elsewhere, that's not the case, and every step you take towards making it easier to distribute/administer is a step towards preventing covid from continuing to spread/mutate as readily as it is. Did you read the article in regards to the army vaccine? It has success in preventing all strains of sars prior to Covid-19 and up to omicron. That sounds a world better then a third world budget vaccine.
I saw something similar posted in the past, and skipped reading your link before my previous post.
Depends to be honest on how those strains are chosen. The way I read it, it's very similar to having a very widely multivalent vaccine in one giant protein. It should in theory provide broad protection because it's got so many different components, but I don't know enough about immunology to say anything. It also will run into distribution issues, same as everything else.
If it can scale, prove safe/effective, it'd be nice to get it as a booster in 2023, but it will take a long time because now that there are solutions already on the market, getting another vaccine approval is going to take ages.
|
Bisutopia19240 Posts
On December 25 2021 12:01 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2021 11:34 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 11:12 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 08:19 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd. Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnantYou can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding. I’m more interested in the bigger discussion of potential other vaccines instead of of heeding advice about what my wife should do specifically with regards to the tools that exist. I do appreciate your response though. That's fair. New vaccines are primarily aimed at the developing world if I'll be honest. Ideal solutions are oral route, or nasal inhaled vaccines rather than syringe, and stable for weeks, if not months at room temperature. For western nations with the supply chain and distribution network to handle for example, Pfizer on release with the ridiculous cold chain, continuing to distribute what we have as efficiently as possible since we have highly effective, highly available vaccines is key. Elsewhere, that's not the case, and every step you take towards making it easier to distribute/administer is a step towards preventing covid from continuing to spread/mutate as readily as it is. Did you read the article in regards to the army vaccine? It has success in preventing all strains of sars prior to Covid-19 and up to omicron. That sounds a world better then a third world budget vaccine. I saw something similar posted in the past, and skipped reading your link before my previous post. Depends to be honest on how those strains are chosen. The way I read it, it's very similar to having a very widely multivalent vaccine in one giant protein. It should in theory provide broad protection because it's got so many different components, but I don't know enough about immunology to say anything. It also will run into distribution issues, same as everything else. If it can scale, prove safe/effective, it'd be nice to get it as a booster in 2023, but it will take a long time because now that there are solutions already on the market, getting another vaccine approval is going to take ages.
So that’s the kicker. What if this vaccine proves effective against all future variants, yet people can’t take it because they took the mRNA vaccine or had too many boosters and it proves unsafe for individuals who have had 3-4 vaccine shots? What if a short term solution now prevents long term solutions for the millions that opted for the short term solution?
|
On December 25 2021 12:39 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2021 12:01 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 11:34 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 11:12 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 08:19 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd. Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnantYou can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding. I’m more interested in the bigger discussion of potential other vaccines instead of of heeding advice about what my wife should do specifically with regards to the tools that exist. I do appreciate your response though. That's fair. New vaccines are primarily aimed at the developing world if I'll be honest. Ideal solutions are oral route, or nasal inhaled vaccines rather than syringe, and stable for weeks, if not months at room temperature. For western nations with the supply chain and distribution network to handle for example, Pfizer on release with the ridiculous cold chain, continuing to distribute what we have as efficiently as possible since we have highly effective, highly available vaccines is key. Elsewhere, that's not the case, and every step you take towards making it easier to distribute/administer is a step towards preventing covid from continuing to spread/mutate as readily as it is. Did you read the article in regards to the army vaccine? It has success in preventing all strains of sars prior to Covid-19 and up to omicron. That sounds a world better then a third world budget vaccine. I saw something similar posted in the past, and skipped reading your link before my previous post. Depends to be honest on how those strains are chosen. The way I read it, it's very similar to having a very widely multivalent vaccine in one giant protein. It should in theory provide broad protection because it's got so many different components, but I don't know enough about immunology to say anything. It also will run into distribution issues, same as everything else. If it can scale, prove safe/effective, it'd be nice to get it as a booster in 2023, but it will take a long time because now that there are solutions already on the market, getting another vaccine approval is going to take ages. So that’s the kicker. What if this vaccine proves effective against all future variants, yet people can’t take it because they took the mRNA vaccine or had too many boosters and it proves unsafe for individuals who have had 3-4 vaccine shots? What if a short term solution now prevents long term solutions for the millions that opted for the short term solution?
I think the worst-case scenario would be that you'd need to wait a few months after getting a very recent vaccine, before getting the new, better vaccine. There's no evidence afaik that having mRNA vaccines or a booster would make it permanently unsafe to get a different vaccine.
|
On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd.
A few things:
1. Perfect is the enemy of good. A vaccine now that protects against delta and a booster to protect against omega NOW is better than a future vaccine that protects against all known strains.
2. If the vaccine being developed is better then they should be able to prove it in an ethically sound trial by having people with Pfizer/Moderna vaccines in the control group and Pfizer/Moderna + new vaccine in the test group. If the new vaccine isn't safe to use in combination with existing vaccines (N months after), then it isn't actually better NOW (see above).
The baseline has moved from no protection to vaccinated with AZ/Jansen/Pfizer/Moderna/Novavax. If you cannot show in a trial that you offer more protection then you aren't actually better. Regardless of what your lab experiments indicated.
3. Your wife should get vaccinated asap. I know the research was a bit late in coming, but it is clear and unequivocal: vaccines do no harm to the fetus and protect the mother from COVID. Moreover they protect the baby as well after birth if she is breastfeeding.
|
Of course people should have the right to choose their brand of vaccines and boosters, here and now. We have a system in place to keep infections under control, and we know more about the different strains of virus and different levels of vaccine efficacy.
It's not right for the government to say "just shut up and take whatever jab we're giving you." It's a question of trust and choice. If the world is slowly flooding, we can't be forcing lowly peons into wooden boats while letting only the VIPs into steel arks. Likewise, it's within our right to prefer a better jab that doesn't wane so fast (eg once a year and 90% immunity) than be forced to take a less effective jab which wanes faster and offers less protection (eg twice a year and 70% immunity). If the first vaccine is scarce, people should have the right to wait out and stay home (worse case, be subject to certain restrictions like not being able to attend events with mass crowds or having to work from home fully).
|
On December 25 2021 12:39 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2021 12:01 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 11:34 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 11:12 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 08:19 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd. Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnantYou can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding. I’m more interested in the bigger discussion of potential other vaccines instead of of heeding advice about what my wife should do specifically with regards to the tools that exist. I do appreciate your response though. That's fair. New vaccines are primarily aimed at the developing world if I'll be honest. Ideal solutions are oral route, or nasal inhaled vaccines rather than syringe, and stable for weeks, if not months at room temperature. For western nations with the supply chain and distribution network to handle for example, Pfizer on release with the ridiculous cold chain, continuing to distribute what we have as efficiently as possible since we have highly effective, highly available vaccines is key. Elsewhere, that's not the case, and every step you take towards making it easier to distribute/administer is a step towards preventing covid from continuing to spread/mutate as readily as it is. Did you read the article in regards to the army vaccine? It has success in preventing all strains of sars prior to Covid-19 and up to omicron. That sounds a world better then a third world budget vaccine. I saw something similar posted in the past, and skipped reading your link before my previous post. Depends to be honest on how those strains are chosen. The way I read it, it's very similar to having a very widely multivalent vaccine in one giant protein. It should in theory provide broad protection because it's got so many different components, but I don't know enough about immunology to say anything. It also will run into distribution issues, same as everything else. If it can scale, prove safe/effective, it'd be nice to get it as a booster in 2023, but it will take a long time because now that there are solutions already on the market, getting another vaccine approval is going to take ages. So that’s the kicker. What if this vaccine proves effective against all future variants, yet people can’t take it because they took the mRNA vaccine or had too many boosters and it proves unsafe for individuals who have had 3-4 vaccine shots? What if a short term solution now prevents long term solutions for the millions that opted for the short term solution?
It wasn’t clear to me in the link you provided if they tested on unvaccinated + no covid for (1) efficacy reasons or (2) because there are concerns regarding safety. I would guess 1, ie they want a true test of how effective the vaccine is. I highly doubt (but I ma just a tl.net poster) that you cannot take both vaccines, same as it’s fine to take both pfizer and astra zeneca, despite az being a different vaccine technology than mRNA.
|
On December 25 2021 19:21 emperorchampion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2021 12:39 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 12:01 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 11:34 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 11:12 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 08:19 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd. Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnantYou can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding. I’m more interested in the bigger discussion of potential other vaccines instead of of heeding advice about what my wife should do specifically with regards to the tools that exist. I do appreciate your response though. That's fair. New vaccines are primarily aimed at the developing world if I'll be honest. Ideal solutions are oral route, or nasal inhaled vaccines rather than syringe, and stable for weeks, if not months at room temperature. For western nations with the supply chain and distribution network to handle for example, Pfizer on release with the ridiculous cold chain, continuing to distribute what we have as efficiently as possible since we have highly effective, highly available vaccines is key. Elsewhere, that's not the case, and every step you take towards making it easier to distribute/administer is a step towards preventing covid from continuing to spread/mutate as readily as it is. Did you read the article in regards to the army vaccine? It has success in preventing all strains of sars prior to Covid-19 and up to omicron. That sounds a world better then a third world budget vaccine. I saw something similar posted in the past, and skipped reading your link before my previous post. Depends to be honest on how those strains are chosen. The way I read it, it's very similar to having a very widely multivalent vaccine in one giant protein. It should in theory provide broad protection because it's got so many different components, but I don't know enough about immunology to say anything. It also will run into distribution issues, same as everything else. If it can scale, prove safe/effective, it'd be nice to get it as a booster in 2023, but it will take a long time because now that there are solutions already on the market, getting another vaccine approval is going to take ages. So that’s the kicker. What if this vaccine proves effective against all future variants, yet people can’t take it because they took the mRNA vaccine or had too many boosters and it proves unsafe for individuals who have had 3-4 vaccine shots? What if a short term solution now prevents long term solutions for the millions that opted for the short term solution? It wasn’t clear to me in the link you provided if they tested on unvaccinated + no covid for (1) efficacy reasons or (2) because there are concerns regarding safety. I would guess 1, ie they want a true test of how effective the vaccine is. I highly doubt (but I ma just a tl.net poster) that you cannot take both vaccines, same as it’s fine to take both pfizer and astra zeneca, despite az being a different vaccine technology than mRNA.
To follow up: also there’s not much point to a vaccine that practically no one will take. And tldr: get vaccinated.
|
On December 25 2021 12:39 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2021 12:01 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 11:34 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 11:12 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:24 BisuDagger wrote:On December 25 2021 08:19 Lmui wrote:On December 25 2021 08:01 BisuDagger wrote:https://m.slashdot.org/story/394227A new vaccine by the army looks very promising. The reason it took so long to test was the lack of unvaccinated subjects who never had covid. Doesn’t it seem important that the public be made aware that new and better vaccines could come quicker based on the number of available unvaccinated subjects. I’m vaccinated, but my wife is not because of having a new child. Knowing a better vaccine may exist now, it would be terrible if my state suddenly just mandated vaccines and eliminated her chance at a better choice. I’d love to read some serious thoughts on this from the TL crowd. Wife should be vaccinated if possible to be honest. Make your own decision, but BC/Canadian gov't is pretty clear that it's best if vaccination occurs. http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine/vaccine-considerations#pregnantYou can probably find more information elsewhere, but it's protective for her during pregnancy, and protective of the child for the duration that they're breastfeeding. I’m more interested in the bigger discussion of potential other vaccines instead of of heeding advice about what my wife should do specifically with regards to the tools that exist. I do appreciate your response though. That's fair. New vaccines are primarily aimed at the developing world if I'll be honest. Ideal solutions are oral route, or nasal inhaled vaccines rather than syringe, and stable for weeks, if not months at room temperature. For western nations with the supply chain and distribution network to handle for example, Pfizer on release with the ridiculous cold chain, continuing to distribute what we have as efficiently as possible since we have highly effective, highly available vaccines is key. Elsewhere, that's not the case, and every step you take towards making it easier to distribute/administer is a step towards preventing covid from continuing to spread/mutate as readily as it is. Did you read the article in regards to the army vaccine? It has success in preventing all strains of sars prior to Covid-19 and up to omicron. That sounds a world better then a third world budget vaccine. I saw something similar posted in the past, and skipped reading your link before my previous post. Depends to be honest on how those strains are chosen. The way I read it, it's very similar to having a very widely multivalent vaccine in one giant protein. It should in theory provide broad protection because it's got so many different components, but I don't know enough about immunology to say anything. It also will run into distribution issues, same as everything else. If it can scale, prove safe/effective, it'd be nice to get it as a booster in 2023, but it will take a long time because now that there are solutions already on the market, getting another vaccine approval is going to take ages. So that’s the kicker. What if this vaccine proves effective against all future variants, yet people can’t take it because they took the mRNA vaccine or had too many boosters and it proves unsafe for individuals who have had 3-4 vaccine shots? What if a short term solution now prevents long term solutions for the millions that opted for the short term solution?
Can you describe to me your understanding of how an mRNA vaccine works? Through what mechanism do you imagine it being unsafe after x number of doses when spread out over the appropriate amount of time?
|
the antibody production in your body is not free; having them produced in perpetuity (a dose in 3, 4, 5 ... months) has to take a tole somewhere somehow, on your body.
get a dose, get covid, get living.
|
On December 26 2021 20:26 xM(Z wrote:
the antibody production in your body is not free; having them produced in perpetuity (a dose in 3, 4, 5 ... months) has to take a tole somewhere somehow, on your body.
get a dose, get covid, get living.
I thought lockdowns were weakening our immune systems?
|
On December 26 2021 20:26 xM(Z wrote:
the antibody production in your body is not free; having them produced in perpetuity (a dose in 3, 4, 5 ... months) has to take a tole somewhere somehow, on your body.
get a dose, get covid, get living. Do you have any idea how much stuff your body produces every single day? how that works?
At worst you will be ever so slightly more hungry for a few days every couple of months.
Is that what we're concerned about now, Eating an extra biscuit?
|
o/
Merry Christmas everyone
It’s fascinating to read this thread; I feel like an anthropologist who’s studying a cult - how the virus concerns someone more than the hysteria surrounding the virus is quite the thing to witness.
Anyway I’ll leave it at that and simply wish you all Happy New Year
User was banned for this post.
|
Looking for opinions:
I’ve been fully vaccinated since February (moderna). My family is scheduled to take their booster shot and I declined.
For me personally, I got super sick with the first dose of the shot. I don’t really see the point of a booster if there’s a chance I react to it the same way as before.
If I was traveling then I would consider it. But being out sick from work is probably my biggest concern rn.
|
On December 28 2021 09:16 Emnjay808 wrote:
Looking for opinions:
I’ve been fully vaccinated since February (moderna). My family is scheduled to take their booster shot and I declined.
For me personally, I got super sick with the first dose of the shot. I don’t really see the point of a booster if there’s a chance I react to it the same way as before.
If I was traveling then I would consider it. But being out sick from work is probably my biggest concern rn.
There's always a chance that the vaccine/booster knocks you on your ass for a day or two, but imho the known benefits far outweigh the potential drawbacks, based on the medical data. My family and friends and I got boostered as soon as we could, to make things a little safer for ourselves, our neighbors, our coworkers, etc.
|
|
|
As a physician I recommend it. People getting major side effects definitively attributed to the vaccine for more than 48 hours is not as common. If you can find a time slot where you have 2 days or more off from work I definitely recommend getting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
