Who's getting the shot?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh well that makes sense then, and I retract what I said.

Sarcasm?

 

[Rival]

Re-read my post 54. I cannot make it any clearer. At worst you have nothing to lose and and at best you get protected from death or serious illness.

Bear in mind that: "we can't know whether the vaccine actually prevents the spread of the virus" does not mean "the vaccine does not stop the spread of the virus".

It means what it says - we can't know - though we have jolly good grounds for expecting it will at least reduce transmission. So you are drawing an entirely wrong conclusion from what you have read.

Frankly, I am beginning to suspect I am up against a belief system of some kind here. What's wrong with you?

There's nothing wrong with me, I just don't believe this vaccine has been tried and tested for remotely long enough for us to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions about anything at all regarding it. The data tells me that other vaccines take years to develop and even then they're not perfect. We still do not, as you mentioned, have a proper flu vaccine - nor will we ever, I suspect, given the nature of the flu. It cannot account for different flu variations, just as this vaccine may not work for other Corona iterations that we already have.

Here are my main issues, regardless whether or not the vaccine is safe:

1. For now we can't say that it prevents the elderly from dying of the virus, so the group most affected is not protected; the group already most likely to die is the group within those vaccinated, also more likely to die.

2. Young people are much more likely to survive, with or without the vaccine.

3. If we cannot conclusively prove it stops transmission, it will not stop the lockdowns or even the virus itself, well, spreading!

4. It may not work on newer Corona variants.

So all these things taken together, what will the vaccine change exactly? The most vulnerable are more likely to die with or without the vaccine, the young are more likely to survive with or without the vaccine, the virus may continue to spread with the vaccine, the lockdowns will continue in this case, and it may not cover all variants of the virus.

I'm sorry, but what then is the point of such a vaccine?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think maybe clouding my subconscious view is that I'm pretty dangerously suicidal right now. I don't actually care if I end up with this virus.

Well I can't say you will regret it, if so, but it pays to have some strength so as to get through bad times. I had a call to arrange a jab for next week, and given that I was asked if I wanted it, I assume that quite a few are turning it down. Still a bit dangerous in my view.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, yesterday I went and got my covid shot. Today my arm hurts like hell. I don't go in for my second shot until a month from now, which sucks, but it is what it is.

What about you folks? Are you getting it? Did you already get it? What variety will you go for?

If you only have 1 of the 2 shots (like me) just count it as having gotten it, cause you've already got one foot in; the other is just a matter of time.

No. If it's not broke, don't fix it. If I have symptoms or anything like that I'd go to the doctors office since I'm already on medications and can't afford to take something new that's still in the testing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How can a vaccine possibly go through a meaningful trial period in under a year? It looks the opposite to me - rushing it through, likely to result in more mistakes.

Before a potential new therapy can reach patients, it goes through several clinical trial phases that test an intervention for both safety and effectiveness. Looking at the big picture, it takes approximately ten years for a new treatment to complete the journey from initial discovery to the marketplace. Clinical trials alone take six to seven years on average to complete.

Before a potential treatment reaches the clinical trial stage, scientists research ideas in what is called the discovery phase. This step can take from three to six years. Typically, researchers will test a potential new treatment in animals before moving on to the first stage of clinical testing in humans.

How long do clinical trial phases take? (antidote.me)

Here's something else:

How Long Do Clinical Trials Take? How Fast Do Clinical Trials Work? (2020)

Clinical Trial Phases 1, 2, 3 & 4: Find FDA Clinical Trial Phases. (2021)

I'd just say don't jump ship just because "they" told you to. Just like if a doctor was offering you surgery, you'd want to get a second and third opinion especially depending on the nature of the surgery and success numbers among other factors.

 

[exchemist]

Sarcasm?

Not at all. If you want to die, then refusing a vaccine that can save your life is perfectly rational. I don't know you and if you want to end your life it is none of my business. I would care about the others you could kill, or make ill, but since you say you don't go out much that doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't give a damn if I get sick and die and I certainly don't care about the rest of you. It's not like I'm socializing much, so you'll be safe, don't worry.

This kind of mentality saddens me, especially knowing we live in the same state. If you don't care about yourself, that's on you, but disregard for the health of others is just plain reckless and selfish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How am I being irrational? The study said we can't know whether the vaccine actually prevents the spread of the virus, nor that it stops the most vulnerable from dying, so what's the point of it exactly? Sure, I may be safe, good for me, but apparently that doesn't stop me spreading the disease if I get it, and if it's an elderly person I spread it to, even if that person has had the vaccine, they are still not necessarily safe?

I mean I don't even?

You are being irrational because you refuse to take a vaccine that has been shown to be safe. If you do not take it you are a risk to others. If it was only your health at risk I would say "Go ahead, it's your life". But what the people that irrationally forget about the vaccine is that its importance is that it stops the virus from being spread. Over 70% of the population needs to be vaccinated to even begin to acquire herd immunity. You may be young and have few risk factors and therefore would likely not die if you caught the disease. The problem is that if you caught the disease you would be likely to pass it on to others. One thing to remember about Covid19 is that one is contagious for up to five days before one realizes that one is ill. People spread the disease by accident, not on purpose. "I would stay home if sick" does not help since you would likely be spreading it before you felt the symptoms.

 

[Rival]

You are being irrational because you refuse to take a vaccine that has been shown to be safe. If you do not take it you are a risk to others. If it was only your health at risk I would say "Go ahead, it's your life". But what the people that irrationally forget about the vaccine is that its importance is that it stops the virus from being spread. Over 70% of the population needs to be vaccinated to even begin to acquire herd immunity. You may be young and have few risk factors and therefore would likely not die if you caught the disease. The problem is that if you caught the disease you would be likely to pass it on to others. One thing to remember about Covid19 is that one is contagious for up to five days before one realizes that one is ill. People spread the disease by accident, not on purpose. "I would stay home if sick" does not help since you would likely be spreading it before you felt the symptoms.

You don't seem to have read my other posts in this thread.

I don't believe a vaccine that isn't even a year old can be said to be safe by any measure whatsoever.

Nor do we know that the vaccine stops the virus spreading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't seem to have read my other posts in this thread.

I don't believe a vaccine that isn't even a year old can be said to be safe by any measure whatsoever.

Nor do we know that the vaccine stops the virus spreading.

We are pretty sure that the vaccine would stop the virus from spreading. Do you know what vaccines do? They prevent people from getting ill in the first place. And the safety of the virus has been confirmed. It is definitely safer than going without. One needs to realize that proper scientific articles do not use absolute terms. They allow for the fact that they could be wrong. But if one goes by the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes, the virus works and it is safe. Your objections are both irrational and more than a bit on the selfish side.

There are a very few people with compromised immune systems that should not take vaccines, but you have informed us that you are healthy. This does not apply to you.

 

[exchemist]

You don't seem to have read my other posts in this thread.

I don't believe a vaccine that isn't even a year old can be said to be safe by any measure whatsoever.

Nor do we know that the vaccine stops the virus spreading.

"I don't believe".

That's irrational, since (i) we know from the trials that it IS safe and (ii) none of the material you have cited as a reason not to take the vaccine says anything to the contrary.

 

[Rival]

We are pretty sure that the vaccine would stop the virus from spreading. Do you know what vaccines do? They prevent people from getting ill in the first place. And the safety of the virus has been confirmed. It is definitely safer than going without. One needs to realize that proper scientific articles do not use absolute terms. They allow for the fact that they could be wrong. But if one goes by the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes, the virus works and it is safe. Your objections are both irrational and more than a bit on the selfish side.

There are a very few people with compromised immune systems that should not take vaccines, but you have informed us that you are healthy. This does not apply to you.

Yeah, I know how vaccines work. I went to school. I've had them.

Johns Hopkins Medicine:

Also, while the vaccine may prevent you from getting sick, it is unknown at this time if you can still carry and transmit the virus to others. That is why, until more is understood about how well the vaccine works, continuing with precautions such as mask-wearing and physical distancing will be important.

COVID-19 Vaccine: What You Need to Know | Johns Hopkins Medicine

And here from Quartz:

We know that the vaccines now available across the world will protect their recipients from getting sick with Covid-19. But while each vaccine authorized for public use can prevent well over 50% of cases (in Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna‘s case, more than 90%), what we don’t know is whether they’ll also curb transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

That question is answerable, though—and understanding vaccines’ effect on transmission will help determine when things can go back to whatever our new normal looks like.

The reason we don’t know if the vaccine can prevent transmission is twofold. One reason is practical. The first order of business for vaccines is preventing exposed individuals from getting sick, so that’s what the clinical trials for Covid-19 shots were designed to determine. We simply don’t have public health data to answer the question of transmission yet.

The second reason is immunological. From a scientific perspective, there are a lot of complex questions about how the vaccine generates antibodies in the body that haven’t yet been studied. Scientists are still eager to explore these immunological rabbit holes, but it could take years to reach the bottom of them.

Can you spread Covid-19 if you get the vaccine? — Quartz (qz.com)

 

[Rival]

"I don't believe".

That's irrational, since (i) we know from the trials that it IS safe and (ii) none of the material you have cited as a reason not to take the vaccine says anything to the contrary.

Of course this is down to belief. How can we know anything about a vaccine that has not been properly clinically tested the same way every other vaccine has?

The question in my mind is why is everyone so eager to believe that such a rushed vaccine can work?

Most normal vaccines go through at least 3 years of testing, minimum, but people here trust one that hasn't even done half that?

That, to me, is the irrational thinking.

 

[exchemist]

Of course this is down to belief. How can we know anything about a vaccine that has not been properly clinically tested the same way every other single vaccine has?

The question in my mind is why is everyone so eager to believe that such a rushed vaccine can work?

Most normal vaccines go through at least 3 years of testing, minimum, but people here trust one that hasn't even done half of that?

That, to me, is the irrational thinking.

Now you are just making stuff up. It HAS been clinically tested, the same way as all other vaccines. I've explained this to you ad nauseam. For the umpteenth time, we know it is safe. That is not in question. At all.

I've now had enough. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned, and I just hope most other readers will understand what I have been trying to explain, even if you can't get over whatever it is that is blocking you.

 

[Lyndon]

I don't want to take the gamble, not with my health, thanks!

I'm sorry, I just have no idea why anyone would trust such a rushed out vaccine.

Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us | The BMJ

But what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”? To the public this seems fairly obvious. “The primary goal of a covid-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,” a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly.6

Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”7

Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either (table 1). None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.

[...]

But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said.

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

Zaks said, “Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial]—too many would die waiting for the results before we ever knew that.”

[...]

“Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”

He repeatedly emphasised these “operational realities” of running a vaccine trial. “Every trial design, especially phase III, is always a balancing act between different needs,” he said. “If you wanted to have an answer on an endpoint that happens at a frequency of one 10th or one fifth the frequency of the primary endpoint, you would need a trial that is either 5 or 10 times larger or you’d need a trial that is 5 or 10 times longer to collect those events. Neither of these, I think, are acceptable in the current public need for knowing expeditiously that a vaccine works.”

you're the one taking a gamble with your health by not getting the vaccine!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's not a "take it or die." Lowing risk of transmission doesnt (rather) sniff the virus out of midair.

If we get second and third opinions of treatments say things like chemotherapy, why jump the gun and kill people who don't over this newer treatment?

I know a lot of people are highly concerned over catching the virus which is understandable given age, health, and thinking of loved ones but not at the expense of fear and acusation that what should work for oneself Should work for others.

 

[exchemist]

It's not a "take it or die." Lowing risk of transmission doesnt (rather) sniff the virus out of midair.

If we get second and third opinions of treatments say things like chemotherapy, why jump the gun and kill people who don't over this newer treatment?

I know a lot of people are highly concerned over catching the virus which is understandable given age, health, and thinking of loved ones but not at the expense of fear andacusation that what should work foroneself Should work for others.

There is no risk from taking the vaccine. We know that. We also know it is effective at stopping you getting ill - which means you won't be coughing over everyone else. OK?

Get vaccinated, for yourself and those around you.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

1. For now we can't say that it prevents the elderly from dying of the virus, so the group most affected is not protected; the group already most likely to die is the group within those vaccinated, also more likely to die.

We can't say that it prevents the elderly from dying of the virus because it would be medically unethical to put the super venerable in a control studies with placebos. That's all. But even if it doesn't, it still reduces severity of symptoms in everyone it has been tested on, which protects caregivers of the elderly, reduces need for hospitalization, and undoubtable saves lives.

2. Young people are much more likely to survive, with or without the vaccine.

Remember when Hammer's wife almost died? She's not old.
There are lots of vulnerable categories, and we shouldn't be casually writing them off as unimportant, including the elderly. And besides, there's a lot more at stake than just dying. The complications from Covid are serious and it causes more hospitalization rates than seasonal flu does by orders of magnitudes. That places a lot of strain on hospitals, who then don't have room, manpower or supplies to treat non-covid related things. We've already seen this happen time and time again.

3. If we cannot conclusively prove it stops transmission, it will not stop the lockdowns or even the virus itself, well, spreading!

It doesn't need to completely stop transmission to be a huge boon. Even if it didn't stop any transmission, by virtue of reducing symptoms in severity and length, you are reducing transmission vectors. Since less people will need to be hospitalized and will be actively sick shorter.

4. It may not work on newer Corona variants.

So what? Even if it doesn't, there's still millions and millions of people getting sick with variants it can work on.
This all-or-nothing attitude seems really counter productive. And is not generally how medicine works with anything.

 

[Rival]

We can't say that it prevents the elderly from dying of the virus because it would be medically unethical to put the super venerable in a control studies with placebos. That's all. But even if it doesn't, it still reduces severity of symptoms in everyone it has been tested on, which protects caregivers of the elderly, reduces need for hospitalization, and undoubtable saves lives.

Remember when Hammer's wife almost died? She's not old.
There are lots of vulnerable categories, and we shouldn't be casually writing them off as unimportant, including the elderly. And besides, there's a lot more at stake than just dying. The complications from Covid are serious and it causes more hospitalization rates than seasonal flu does by orders of magnitudes. That places a lot of strain on hospitals, who then don't have room, manpower or supplies to treat non-covid related things. We've already seen this happen time and time again.

It doesn't need to completely stop transmission to be a huge boon. Even if it didn't stop any transmission, by virtue of reducing symptoms in severity and length, you are reducing transmission vectors. Since less people will need to be hospitalized and will be actively sick shorter.

So what? Even if it doesn't, there's still millions and millions of people getting sick with variants it can work on.
This all-or-nothing attitude seems really counter productive. And is not generally how medicine works with anything.

Look, I'm not saying no-one should take the vaccine. I'm not saying a vaccine for this wouldn't be good.

I just don't know why I'm being pounced on for suggesting that a vaccine that hasn't even been trialled for more than a year may not be as safe, effective or useful as it's being made out to be. The only reason this vaccine is even legally allowed to be rolled out so early is because of emergency measures, and I'm just not sure that's good enough. I'm in a better the devil you know mindset here. If it does help people, great; I just don't conclusively know if it does, and neither can anyone, given that the longterm effects of this vaccine have yet to be known.

That's my problem, and I don't know why it's so controversial.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is no risk from taking the vaccine. We know that. We also know it is effective at stopping you getting ill - which means you won't be coughing over everyone else. OK?

Get vaccinated, for yourself and those around you.

But that doesn't excuse my point that chemotherapy works but people just don't take it just because fifty some odd doctors (making up a number) says it's okay. Taking medicine for any thing whether to prevent, treat, or cure is always an individual decision based on that person's health, morals, environment, and general logic and experience.

Of course I wouldn't cough on other people. You don't wake up asymptomatic.

Of course there's a "what if; you may; it's a high chance".... that's understandable for many people to think that way because of their age, maybe their health, loved ones, or so have you. But "what ifs" make some people panic, some skeptical, and some indifferent. It really just depends.

I personally wouldn't get vaccinated (for any illness) unless I was in a position, environment, maybe age, and health in order to do so. It's really not a "do it or you'll affect the whole world" type of thing.