Neverending Covid-19 Coronavirus

[Goatfish]

Just say you don't trust the FDA to do their job I guess. Not sure why you feel that way. The only resources you will have are the same studies they will consider, just like all other drugs that are approved. I think assuming the FDA is going to cut corners before the fact is fear mongering.

I trust the FDA to make a decision based on the guidelines they have to decide if a vaccine is “safe enough” for mass production.

My level of acceptable risk might be lower. I trust the FDA to do their job, not to make a risk assessment on my personal long term health vs. my personal risk of catching a virus.

 

[dhodo]

I trust the FDA to make a decision based on the guidelines they have to decide if a vaccine is “safe enough” for mass production.

My level of acceptable risk might be lower. I trust the FDA to do their job, not to make a risk assessment on my personal long term health vs. my personal risk of catching a virus.

Yes, just like literally every other drug/treatment.

It isn't just about you though, which is something that I feel like comes up every time. Vaccines aren't implemented or required to protect the individual.

 

[Goatfish]

Yes, just like literally every other drug/treatment.

It isn't just about you though, which is something that I feel like comes up every time. Vaccines aren't implemented or required to protect the individual.

The FDA’s process doesn’t have anything to do with my health decisions. That’s my problem and my responsibility.

My entire point was that I don’t think it makes a person an “idiot” for taking a measured approach. This is going to be a potentially unprecedented type of vaccine that I have concerns with causing autoimmune disease. If you have no issues or concerns, that is your prerogative and I don’t see any issue with that.

 

[dhodo]

The FDA’s process doesn’t have anything to do with my health decisions. That’s my problem and my responsibility.

My entire point was that I don’t think it makes a person an “idiot” for taking a measured approach. This is going to be a potentially unprecedented type of vaccine that I have concerns with causing autoimmune disease. If you have no issues or concerns, that is your prerogative and I don’t see any issue with that.

You think they're going to approve a vaccine that causes autoimmune disease? Is that based on anything?

I didn't call you or anyone an idiot.

 

[Goatfish]

You think they're going to approve a vaccine that causes autoimmune disease? Is that based on anything?

I didn't call you or anyone an idiot.

Knowingly? Absolutely not. But this is a new type of vaccine. We’ve never had an mRNA vaccine, and one of the concerning things about this virus is its ability to disguise its RNA as human tissue (Coronavirus makes changes that cause cells not to recognize it: Discovery lays groundwork for designing novel antiviral drugs).

We will know from the Phase 3 trials if there is a negative autoimmune response within the trial period, but what if it doesn’t occur until months later?

• Safety: better understanding of vaccine adverse effects is needed – these can include inflammation or autoimmune reactions.” (https://www.phgfoundation.org/briefing/rna-vaccines)
  
  Again, we’ve never released a vaccine faster than 4 years in history. It usually takes a lot of time to verify potential negative side effects. For those who are at large risk of dying or suffering hospitalization from COVID, the trade off is definitely worth it.

As far as you calling me an idiot, I was referring to @wokeupnew ’s comment saying “people are idiots” in reference to 70% of people delaying getting vaccine unless it’s to leave more vaccine to most at risk.

 

[wokeupnew]

Knowingly? Absolutely not. But this is a new type of vaccine. We’ve never had an mRNA vaccine, and one of the concerning things about this virus is its ability to disguise its RNA as human tissue (Coronavirus makes changes that cause cells not to recognize it: Discovery lays groundwork for designing novel antiviral drugs).

We will know from the Phase 3 trials if there is a negative autoimmune response within the trial period, but what if it doesn’t occur until months later?

• Safety: better understanding of vaccine adverse effects is needed – these can include inflammation or autoimmune reactions.” (RNA vaccines: an introduction)
  
  Again, we’ve never released a vaccine faster than 4 years in history. It usually takes a lot of time to verify potential negative side effects. For those who are at large risk of dying or suffering hospitalization from COVID, the trade off is definitely worth it.

As far as you calling me an idiot, I was referring to @wokeupnew ’s comment saying “people are idiots” in reference to 70% of people delaying getting vaccine unless it’s to leave more vaccine to most at risk.

It wasn’t the 70% thing. It was people who say “I don’t wanna be a guinea pig” after a drug is already approved by the FDA.

Normal timetables for drug approval don’t really apply when the drug being developed and approved are of this magnitude. Countless companies and pharmaceutical scientists are working towards getting this done. It is unprecedented and we will likely have a vaccine developed in record time.

if you don’t want to trust it, that’s your prerogative. I don’t want to get into a vax/anti-vax discussion because at the end of the day my guess is we’ll be in disagreement. Which is totally fine.

 

[dhodo]

Knowingly? Absolutely not. But this is a new type of vaccine. We’ve never had an mRNA vaccine, and one of the concerning things about this virus is its ability to disguise its RNA as human tissue (Coronavirus makes changes that cause cells not to recognize it: Discovery lays groundwork for designing novel antiviral drugs).

We will know from the Phase 3 trials if there is a negative autoimmune response within the trial period, but what if it doesn’t occur until months later?

• Safety: better understanding of vaccine adverse effects is needed – these can include inflammation or autoimmune reactions.” (RNA vaccines: an introduction)
  
  Again, we’ve never released a vaccine faster than 4 years in history. It usually takes a lot of time to verify potential negative side effects. For those who are at large risk of dying or suffering hospitalization from COVID, the trade off is definitely worth it.

As far as you calling me an idiot, I was referring to @wokeupnew ’s comment saying “people are idiots” in reference to 70% of people delaying getting vaccine unless it’s to leave more vaccine to most at risk.

Do you always do research into the approval time vs average approval time and results of trials for any drugs that you or your family are prescribed? Just curious, because I've never met anyone who does. Do you always think that your judgement is better than medical professionals and the FDA? And I say that fully expecting if there are any issues, the medical professionals will make recommendation more complicated than "everyone get it." Just like all drugs and treatments.

I think making negative assumptions about the safety at this moment is incredibly premature and fear mongering and pointless.

If the consensus of the relevant medical experts is something I feel is acceptable, I will get vaccinated. Not for myself, but for others. I have absolutely no expertise in the field and saying I don't trust the medical community or the FDA based on a bunch of what ifs seems very strange to me. I don't have any reason to assume that the FDA and the medical community will rush the results. And by that I don't mean time window, I mean I trust them to make the call over me looking at an average timetable and assuming that means anything, when I am not an expert.

We simply don't have the information yet and yet you seem to have already made up your mind. I don't understand that. I will reserve final judgement for the time at which the data is in and the conditions are fully defined.

 

[dhodo]

Knowingly? Absolutely not. But this is a new type of vaccine. We’ve never had an mRNA vaccine, and one of the concerning things about this virus is its ability to disguise its RNA as human tissue (Coronavirus makes changes that cause cells not to recognize it: Discovery lays groundwork for designing novel antiviral drugs).

We will know from the Phase 3 trials if there is a negative autoimmune response within the trial period, but what if it doesn’t occur until months later?

• Safety: better understanding of vaccine adverse effects is needed – these can include inflammation or autoimmune reactions.” (RNA vaccines: an introduction)
  
  Again, we’ve never released a vaccine faster than 4 years in history. It usually takes a lot of time to verify potential negative side effects. For those who are at large risk of dying or suffering hospitalization from COVID, the trade off is definitely worth it.

As far as you calling me an idiot, I was referring to @wokeupnew ’s comment saying “people are idiots” in reference to 70% of people delaying getting vaccine unless it’s to leave more vaccine to most at risk.

I don't believe causing an auto-immune reaction is the same thing as causing an auto-immune disease at all. Is it? I don't read that at all as causing something like Lupus for the rest of your life, which is what I thought you meant by causing auto-immune disease. I'd be interested to read more about the specific auto-immune reactions caused by those vaccines if you come across any more info.

 

[Jan]

Bad news of tge week: antibody levels seem to decline a few months after a covid-19 disease. That might not automatically mean that immunity is gone, because there are other factors involved in immunity as well. But it might render widespread antibody testung pretty useless.

COVID research: a year of scientific milestones

Nature waded through the literature on the coronavirus — and summarized key papers as they appeared.

www.nature.com

A little anecdotal evidene for that that was in german news the last days. The first person in germany infected with the virus in mid january has no measurable amounts of antibodies left since april ( and also so far no long term complicafions)

 

[Turbo]

A little anecdotal evidene for that that was in german news the last days. The first person in germany infected with the virus in mid january has no measurable amounts of antibodies left since april ( and also so far no long term complicafions)

It's looking more likely that longer term immunity may pass through T cells with this disease. This does have important implications with serological testing though. I read recently that Sweden is already testing for both antibodies and T cells and not only for antibodies anymore to get an idea of prior infection percentages. We're kind of learning on the fly with this, which is to be expected. But I'm not too worried about overall immunity dropping this fast (yet) - like I still don't expect people to start massively re-catching COVID-19 (though for sure expect some incidents, which are hopefully few, since people have a wide range of immune systems).

 

[Goatfish]

It wasn’t the 70% thing. It was people who say “I don’t wanna be a guinea pig” after a drug is already approved by the FDA.

Normal timetables for drug approval don’t really apply when the drug being developed and approved are of this magnitude. Countless companies and pharmaceutical scientists are working towards getting this done. It is unprecedented and we will likely have a vaccine developed in record time.

if you don’t want to trust it, that’s your prerogative. I don’t want to get into a vax/anti-vax discussion because at the end of the day my guess is we’ll be in disagreement. Which is totally fine.

I’m not an antivaxxer by any means but you’re right. This is unprecedented. For better or for worse - and it’s not that I don’t want to be a “guinea pig”, it’s that I want to make an assessment before lining up.

Do you always do research into the approval time vs average approval time and results of trials for any drugs that you or your family are prescribed? Just curious, because I've never met anyone who does. Do you always think that your judgement is better than medical professionals and the FDA? And I say that fully expecting if there are any issues, the medical professionals will make recommendation more complicated than "everyone get it." Just like all drugs and treatments.

I think making negative assumptions about the safety at this moment is incredibly premature and fear mongering and pointless.

If the consensus of the relevant medical experts is something I feel is acceptable, I will get vaccinated. Not for myself, but for others. I have absolutely no expertise in the field and saying I don't trust the medical community or the FDA based on a bunch of what ifs seems very strange to me. I don't have any reason to assume that the FDA and the medical community will rush the results. And by that I don't mean time window, I mean I trust them to make the call over me looking at an average timetable and assuming that means anything, when I am not an expert.

We simply don't have the information yet and yet you seem to have already made up your mind. I don't understand that. I will reserve final judgement for the time at which the data is in and the conditions are fully defined.

1. No, because any vaccine me or my kids have ever taken have been on the market for years and have been recommended by my doctor. I have looked at the VAERS data to debate my antivaxxer friends and discuss the risks/benefits, and used that information along with my doctors' recommendations to make calls on what I inject into my body.

2. "Consensus" doesn't exist for a vaccine that doesn't exist. I didn't say I wouldn't get the vaccine for sure, all I said is I was among the 70% who will "wait" since I want to have time to do my due diligence in regard to clinical trial data and consult with my doctor.

3. I have not "made up my mind", and I'm certainly more skeptical of an RNA vaccine (Pfizer/Moderna) than I would of an inactivated vaccine (Oxford). That's just due to the fact we have hard science and a long history of that type of vaccine being used safely and effectively.

I don't believe causing an auto-immune reaction is the same thing as causing an auto-immune disease at all. Is it? I don't read that at all as causing something like Lupus for the rest of your life, which is what I thought you meant by causing auto-immune disease. I'd be interested to read more about the specific auto-immune reactions caused by those vaccines if you come across any more info.

It will be the first of its kind, that's the concern. I don't have much of a concern with an inactivated virus vaccine.

Guillain Barre syndrome is what I was referring to in reference to auto immune disease, which was seen when a vaccine was rushed in 1976:

"It was no surprise to me that, despite the fact he hadn't been born yet, Sean was familiar with the story of the swine flu vaccine of 1976. In January of that year, a new or novel virus began spreading at Fort Dix in New Jersey. Fearful that this new virus might cause a pandemic like the one in 1918, the United States rushed a vaccine through development. Within a year, nearly 25% of Americans had been vaccinated, around 45 million people. Without enough time to perform adequate safety trials, however, devastating side effects started to emerge. Hundreds of people developed Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralysis that starts in the feet and slowly marches up your body. Several people also died, and for some, a fear of vaccination remains to this day. "

(He signed up for a coronavirus vaccine trial using a method that's never been used in humans. Here's why.).

 

[Jan]

It's looking more likely that longer term immunity may pass through T cells with this disease. This does have important implications with serological testing though. I read recently that Sweden is already testing for both antibodies and T cells and not only for antibodies only anymore to get an idea of prior infection percentages. We're kind of learning on the fly with this, which is to be expected. But I'm not too worried about overall immunity dropping this fast (yet) - like I still don't expect people to start massively re-catching COVID-19 (though for sure expect some incidents, which are hopefully few, since people have a wide range of immune systems).

It's probably not around long enough to know anything about long-term immunity, but it at least seems that antibody testing is not giving as much information as one hoped for in the beginning. That's what frustrates me most about the criticism of the populist on people like Fauci. This "But he was wrong before, so we cannot trust him". That's how the scientific method works with new discoveries. Form a hypothesis, test it, make a better hypothesis. This is really hard if the new discovery is a fast spreading deadly virus.

 

[Goatfish]

It's looking more likely that longer term immunity may pass through T cells with this disease. This does have important implications with serological testing though. I read recently that Sweden is already testing for both antibodies and T cells and not only for antibodies anymore to get an idea of prior infection percentages. We're kind of learning on the fly with this, which is to be expected. But I'm not too worried about overall immunity dropping this fast (yet) - like I still don't expect people to start massively re-catching COVID-19 (though for sure expect some incidents, which are hopefully few, since people have a wide range of immune systems).

This is the key. Glad T cells and memory T cells are being covered more. There was a (small) study put out recently that people previously exposed to SARS COV 1 still had memory t cell response to SARS COV 2 17 years later : SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls

 

[Turbo]

I think his commentary surrounding masks and social distancing was reprehensible. His Twitter account appeared to have been run by his staff and he still is responsible for what is posted, but this vaccine hesitancy is warranted in my view.

Context is important - I’m far from an anti-vaxxer, my kids have had all their vaccines, and I get the flu jab every year (along with anything else I’m due for). That being said, I think it’s natural for people to be wary of rushing out to get a vaccine that is for a coronavirus when no other vaccine for that class of virus has ever been created, in 1/4 the time any safe/effective vaccine has ever been developed.

A lot is unknown about mRNA vaccines (like the Moderna and Pfizer ones being tested as opposed to the Oxford or Valneva ones), and if that is what is released it will be the first of its type released in an absurdly short amount of time. Because of this, I will be hesitant to get one right away. SARS-CoV-2 disguises itself as human RNA (SARS-CoV-2 disguises its own genetic material to facilitate infection). There is some concern about long term effects (sound familiar?) of the autoimmune variety that might not be evident until months after inoculation.

Given the IFR of my age (34) and health (regular extensive bloodwork, no comorbidities) is <0.05% and the risk of adverse reaction is unquantifiable, I’d hope others would be understanding of my reticence to hurry up and get jabbed.

This is not to say that I will definitely wait to get a vaccine if the information from the Phase 3 clinical trials show the risks of adverse effects are less than any adverse effects of me or someone who I have close contact with on a regular basis has of getting seriously ill from the virus, but if I took this poll I'd probably be counted among the 70% dumb-dumb headed hillbillies.

The bit I highlighted is irrelevant to RNA vaccines. It's a property of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA which can appropriate the innate cellular mRNA capping system and then use the cellular machinery to replicate itself (FYI, I did my PhD on mRNA cap binding proteins, albeit 20 years ago). The RNA vaccine will in fact use a similar strategy of co-opting the cellular machinery to do its thing, but it's not the same virulent nucleic acid.

You're right to say there may be issues with RNA vaccines since it's completely new technology. Stage 3 testing should hopefully catch if serious side-effects exist. They don't usually approve vaccine with higher than 1:100,000 incidents of serious side-effects since the intent is to give this to healthy people and keep them that way, not make them sick. Given the seriousness of the situation, they may still approve but limit its use in less at risk populations? That said, I'm pretty amazed at how promising the results with the RNA vaccines have been so far in stage 2 and in animals. We may be on the verge of a big technological breakthrough with vaccines if RNA vaccine prove their efficacy and safety.

 

[Goatfish]

The bit I highlighted is irrelevant to RNA vaccines. It's a property of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA which can appropriate the innate cellular mRNA capping system and then use the cellular machinery to replicate itself (FYI, I did my PhD on mRNA cap binding proteins, albeit 20 years ago). The RNA vaccine will in fact use a similar strategy of co-opting the cellular machinery to do its thing, but it's not the same virulent nucleic acid.

You're right to say there may be issues with RNA vaccines since it's completely new technology. Stage 3 testing should hopefully catch if serious side-effects exist. They don't usually approve vaccine with higher than 1:100,000 incidents of serious side-effects since the intent is to give this to healthy people and keep them that way, not make them sick. Given the seriousness of the situation, they may still approve but limit its use in less at risk populations? That said, I'm pretty amazed at how promising the results with the RNA vaccines have been so far in stage 2 and in animals. We may be on the verge of a big technological breakthrough with vaccines if RNA vaccine prove their efficacy and safety.

Awesome, I hope that's the case!

 

[dhodo]

I’m not an antivaxxer by any means but you’re right. This is unprecedented. For better or for worse - and it’s not that I don’t want to be a “guinea pig”, it’s that I want to make an assessment before lining up.



1. No, because any vaccine me or my kids have ever taken have been on the market for years and have been recommended by my doctor. I have looked at the VAERS data to debate my antivaxxer friends and discuss the risks/benefits, and used that information along with my doctors' recommendations to make calls on what I inject into my body.

2. "Consensus" doesn't exist for a vaccine that doesn't exist. I didn't say I wouldn't get the vaccine for sure, all I said is I was among the 70% who will "wait" since I want to have time to do my due diligence in regard to clinical trial data and consult with my doctor.

3. I have not "made up my mind", and I'm certainly more skeptical of an RNA vaccine (Pfizer/Moderna) than I would of an inactivated vaccine (Oxford). That's just due to the fact we have hard science and a long history of that type of vaccine being used safely and effectively.



It will be the first of its kind, that's the concern. I don't have much of a concern with an inactivated virus vaccine.

Guillain Barre syndrome is what I was referring to in reference to auto immune disease, which was seen when a vaccine was rushed in 1976:

"It was no surprise to me that, despite the fact he hadn't been born yet, Sean was familiar with the story of the swine flu vaccine of 1976. In January of that year, a new or novel virus began spreading at Fort Dix in New Jersey. Fearful that this new virus might cause a pandemic like the one in 1918, the United States rushed a vaccine through development. Within a year, nearly 25% of Americans had been vaccinated, around 45 million people. Without enough time to perform adequate safety trials, however, devastating side effects started to emerge. Hundreds of people developed Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralysis that starts in the feet and slowly marches up your body. Several people also died, and for some, a fear of vaccination remains to this day. "

(He signed up for a coronavirus vaccine trial using a method that's never been used in humans. Here's why.).

Apparently the risk of auto immune disease is present for vaccines in general? Even the long approved ones you are referring to as trusting. I didn't know that. I thought you meant it had something to do specifically with this type of vaccine. I don't see why you are singling this one out.

Vaccination and autoimmune diseases: is prevention of adverse health effects on the horizon?

Autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes mellitus, affect about 5% of the worldwide population. In the last decade, reports have accumulated on various autoimmune disorders, such as idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura, myopericarditis, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Turbo]

Awesome, I hope that's the case!

Hey, I'd be cautious about FDA approvals too right now since there may be some political skin in the game.

 

[dhodo]

Apparently the risk of auto immune disease is present for vaccines in general? Even the long approved ones you are referring to as trusting. I didn't know that. I thought you meant it had something to do specifically with this type of vaccine. I don't see why you are singling this one out.

Vaccination and autoimmune diseases: is prevention of adverse health effects on the horizon?

Autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes mellitus, affect about 5% of the worldwide population. In the last decade, reports have accumulated on various autoimmune disorders, such as idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura, myopericarditis, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thought this part was interesting.

"The relationship between vaccines and autoimmunity is bidirectional. On the one hand, the immunization prevents infectious diseases, and thus in turn prevents the development of an overt autoimmune disease which in some individuals is triggered by infections. Furthermore, Singh et al. [160] suggest that immunization with certain vaccines may stimulate the immune system to modulate or prevent the generation of pathogenic cells by the induction of regulatory cells, and thus prevent autoimmunity. The post-vaccination adverse events strongly suggest that vaccinations can trigger autoimmunity in a similar way to the infections to be prevented. In this way, vaccination should be considered as part of the mosaic of autoimmunity, in which abrogation of an autoimmune disease (and in the case of vaccination, the prevention of an autoimmune disease) could concomitantly induce another autoimmune disease."

 

[wokeupnew]

I’m not an antivaxxer by any means but you’re right. This is unprecedented. For better or for worse - and it’s not that I don’t want to be a “guinea pig”, it’s that I want to make an assessment before lining up.



1. No, because any vaccine me or my kids have ever taken have been on the market for years and have been recommended by my doctor. I have looked at the VAERS data to debate my antivaxxer friends and discuss the risks/benefits, and used that information along with my doctors' recommendations to make calls on what I inject into my body.

2. "Consensus" doesn't exist for a vaccine that doesn't exist. I didn't say I wouldn't get the vaccine for sure, all I said is I was among the 70% who will "wait" since I want to have time to do my due diligence in regard to clinical trial data and consult with my doctor.

3. I have not "made up my mind", and I'm certainly more skeptical of an RNA vaccine (Pfizer/Moderna) than I would of an inactivated vaccine (Oxford). That's just due to the fact we have hard science and a long history of that type of vaccine being used safely and effectively.



It will be the first of its kind, that's the concern. I don't have much of a concern with an inactivated virus vaccine.

Guillain Barre syndrome is what I was referring to in reference to auto immune disease, which was seen when a vaccine was rushed in 1976:

"It was no surprise to me that, despite the fact he hadn't been born yet, Sean was familiar with the story of the swine flu vaccine of 1976. In January of that year, a new or novel virus began spreading at Fort Dix in New Jersey. Fearful that this new virus might cause a pandemic like the one in 1918, the United States rushed a vaccine through development. Within a year, nearly 25% of Americans had been vaccinated, around 45 million people. Without enough time to perform adequate safety trials, however, devastating side effects started to emerge. Hundreds of people developed Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralysis that starts in the feet and slowly marches up your body. Several people also died, and for some, a fear of vaccination remains to this day. "

(He signed up for a coronavirus vaccine trial using a method that's never been used in humans. Here's why.).

Apologies to assume you were an anti-vaxxer. A fair amount of skepticism is not really a bad thing I guess as long as you’re not immediately just discrediting something based on no information.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

Aliens Issue Statement Asserting That Sex with Them Does Not Spread the Coronavirus

“In this, as in all matters,” the aliens wrote, “it’s important to follow the science.”

www.newyorker.com

How about some satire?