Will you take the mRNA Vaccine Immediately When Available?

[24858]

"SARS killed nearly 800 people when it emerged from China in 2002 and spread around the world in the first half of 2003. Only a handful of isolated outbreaks have been spotted since that initial epidemic.

Aware that the disease could re-emerge, several groups have been trying to make a vaccine against the virus. They are mainly trying to find ways to expose people to a protein on the virus's coat, called the spike protein, which helps it to enter cells. This should jolt the immune system into recognizing the virus during a future infection and making antibodies that attack it.

In the new study, Gary Nabel of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland, and his co-workers injected mice with spike protein from a SARS virus taken from a human patient infected in early 2003. They then collected the antibodies the animals produced.

In lab experiments, they showed that these antibodies were unable to attack spike protein from a different strain of SARS, isolated from a patient infected in late 2003.

The team next tested whether the antibodies would attack spike proteins from two SARS strains isolated from civets, from which the virus is thought to have originally jumped into humans. In this case, they found hints that the antibodies actually boosted the ability of the virus to infect cells. The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science1.

Caution raised over SARS vaccine - Nature

Jab against one strain might worsen infection with others.

www.nature.com

Anyone want to jump on and comment on this article regarding SARS back in 2005? The original article is at the bottom of the link

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[greatnt249]

Read this, and ask yourself, and answer for me, what has changed since March? Asking from a stance of genuine conversation with you, not a gotcha type of discussion. Lets keep this a nice talk, lets agree together to try to arrive at a place of knowewlge and agree not to attack one another here. Here’s why we can’t rush a COVID-19 vaccine

1. We were more limited in our understanding of the virus then.

2. Turns out there's a lot of red tape you have to go through to launch a study of this magnitude, though a lot of tape can be cut if you throw enough money, resources, and social pressure at it all at once.

3. We didn't know at the time what the true extent of this pandemic would be or how long we would be dealing with it; everything was speculation. Vaccines probably became the choice/hope for solution when it started becoming evident that it wouldn't fizzle out on its own and "flattening the curve" didn't make it go away (though that was never the purpose for flattening the curve, despite how often the goalposts were moved by the media regarding its purpose).

 

[wamcp]

1. Individual mask wearing/distancing only works to the extent that the greater population is willing to adhere to these practices consistently; I think we've all borne witness to how well we, as a population, managed to do that over the past year. I'm all about personally liberty, but there has to be a line where the mentality of "someone else can follow the rules but I'm 'special'" has to go.

2. Death is not the only adverse long-term outcome to consider from contracting COVID.

3. Personally developing the illness is not the only consideration to be taken when discussing whether to be vaccinated or not. If a healthcare worker becomes ill with COVID, how sick that individual becomes is not the only thing that needs to be taken into consideration. That single individual has now become a single point of contact for many people over the course of their infection (at least, until they know they're infected) who otherwise did not have the option to socially distance themselves from that worker. The mentality has to extend beyond how getting sick with COVID personally affects you and only you.

4. If we practiced medicine on the basis of whether fringe anti-science groups would seize upon any mishaps (real or perceived) to further their own agendas, medicine, or even science for that matter, would never advance. The discussion we should be having with patients should be based on what we know based on the available evidence, and beyond what is published is all speculation. Now would be a really good time to get comfortable with using the phrase "I/we don't know" with your patients. Not in a "deer-in-the-headlights" sense of the phrase, but in stating the honest truth about the information that is actually available to us.

You are not getting the point. I am talking about you/ me as an individual. We can prevent infection by covid in ourselves by adherence to PPE and distancing. We can minimize the risk of getting covid +/- unknown risks of long term covid effects.

but for a new vaccine with unknown risks? It is you either take it and assume the unknown risk, or you decline it and take on zero of the unknown risk. There is no “after you take the vaccine just do jumping jacks everyday and you can greatly reduce the (unknown) risk of vaccine adverse effects”

add that to the fact that at my age group, covid has near zero chance of killing me, perhaps now you can understand why my stance is to advocate new vaccines for the truly vulnerable rather than young healthy individuals. Especially with limited vaccine supplies.

 

[24858]

1. We were more limited in our understanding of the virus then.

2. Turns out there's a lot of red tape you have to go through to launch a study of this magnitude, though a lot of tape can be cut if you throw enough money, resources, and social pressure at it all at once.

3. We didn't know at the time what the true extent of this pandemic would be or how long we would be dealing with it; everything was speculation. Vaccines probably became the choice/hope for solution when it started becoming evident that it wouldn't fizzle out on its own and "flattening the curve" didn't make it go away (though that was never the purpose for flattening the curve, despite how often the goalposts were moved by the media regarding its purpose).

Thats fair. The impetus from business, the public, to end all of this madness is at a climax. My question is though, why not just vaccinate those at highest risk? Why vaccinate everyone? Why did the WHO recently change their definition on their website of herd immunity from reaching a certain population infected/vaccinated to now that to reach herd immunity people need to be vaccinated (no longer includes passive immunity by being infected)? Fauci now claims that we need 90% of people vaccinated prior to being able to stop these lockdowns. I would imagine everyone will agree that 90% vaccination will not come about in most western countries without some sort of mandate/restrictions of the unvaccinated. I know its a lot of questions...

 

[24858]

Another concern is that this vaccine/drug has not been tested in pregnant women or women attempting to become pregnant and yet this recommendation was just released by ACOG. Vaccinating Pregnant and Lactating Patients Against COVID-19

 

[wamcp]

Epinay it's a waste of time - wamcp is a troll.

Makes sense, ignore and label anyone who disagrees (despite citing multiple sources backing up that opposition view) as a ‘troll’.

The 24% of SDN who voted no on taking the mrna vaccine also must be trolls.
/s

 

[greatnt249]

You are not getting the point. I am talking about you/ me as an individual. We can prevent infection by covid in ourselves by adherence to PPE and distancing. We can minimize the risk of getting covid +/- unknown risks of long term covid effects.

but for a new vaccine with unknown risks? It is you either take it and assume the unknown risk, or you decline it and take on zero of the unknown risk. There is no “after you take the vaccine just do jumping jacks everyday and you can greatly reduce the (unknown) risk of vaccine adverse effects”

add that to the fact that at my age group, covid has near zero chance of killing me, perhaps now you can understand why my stance is to advocate new vaccines for the truly vulnerable rather than young healthy individuals. Especially with limited vaccine supplies.

My mother-in-law got it even though she double-masked and wore a face shield; she was probably the most paranoid of my close circle about getting the virus too; in fact, I personally thought she was taking risk aversion a little too far. My point was that doing those things isn't entirely foolproof, and very much depends on the extent that the people you associate with do those things regularly as well.

My take on why healthcare workers get first crack at getting the vaccine is that you are known to have more potential exposure to people with COVID on a regular basis by shear virtue of what you do at work on a daily basis, and that also we are reaching a point where we can't afford to have people out sick. Maybe the mentality was to keep hospitals themselves from being superspreader locations; all speculation on my part, but that's how I see it.

Vaccinating only the truly vulnerable also wouldn't seem like it would turn the pandemic around, which was ostensibly the whole point in developing a vaccine. There has to be a middle ground between "don't get vaccinated" and "throw whatever we have available to market and see if it sticks."

 

[greatnt249]

Thats fair. The impetus from business, the public, to end all of this madness is at a climax. My question is though, why not just vaccinate those at highest risk? Why vaccinate everyone? Why did the WHO recently change their definition on their website of herd immunity from reaching a certain population infected/vaccinated to now that to reach herd immunity people need to be vaccinated (no longer includes passive immunity by being infected)? Fauci now claims that we need 90% of people vaccinated prior to being able to stop these lockdowns. I would imagine everyone will agree that 90% vaccination will not come about in most western countries without some sort of mandate/restrictions of the unvaccinated. I know its a lot of questions...

I believe the reason they increased the percentage needed for herd immunity was on the basis of not knowing how long being infected previously would confer immunity. Granted, we probably don't know that for the vaccine either, but they were probably hoping to reach the demographic of people who would have otherwise thought "nah I'm good I already had COVID." If we only vaccinate those at highest risk, I don't think that would be enough to make the pandemic go away anytime soon. My other personal concern is that the longer we let this virus linger around, the more likely it is that it will mutate, which could potentially thwart any progress we've made to this point. Again, I will freely admit this is all speculation.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You are correct. I don't believe they are hiding any short term complications from the vaccine. My problem is that with the waiver, we are basically absolving them of liability for long term complications. Yes I understand they don't have long term data.

I'm not sure that would stand up in court, they tend to be wary of immunity for private companies.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Right. So there's a certain point where we have to lift restrictions. Once the vaccine is available at CVS to anyone who wants one, like the flu shot, then all COVID restrictions need to go. At that point if the at-risk-people can't take it upon themselves to get vaccinated, then it's their own fault.

It needs to have time to actually get everyone the vaccine. Once a certain percentage (let's say 60% for arguments sake) have had the chance to get it based on availability, then I agree with you.

 

[Cinclus]

Been following this thread for a while. Pretty sure I contracted it myself traveling for holidays. Slept crappy Monday night. Headache, sore throat, fatigue set in Tuesday afternoon. It’s Friday now and I’m feeling just about back to normal other than some congestion. Felt pretty similar to any upper respiratory ailment I’ve ever had. Will test tomorrow to confirm it’s the rona. As far as the vaccine goes, my personal risk assessment is that I’d would rather take my chances with the virus, but I feel that’s something everyone should make as an individual. I don’t fault anyone for coming to a different conclusion for themselves.

So, would you say you took a chance...and rolled the bones? (Sorry, I had to do it based on your name.)

 

[GeneralVeers]

It needs to have time to actually get everyone the vaccine. Once a certain percentage (let's say 60% for arguments sake) have had the chance to get it based on availability, then I agree with you.

The actual percentage shouldn't matter. If the vaccine works (which I believe it does), then just having it widely available should be enough to remove restrictions. Remember, we are doing all of this to protect the elderly and at risk. Once they can get vaccinated, and become protected, then there's no reason to continue punishing society.

 

[wamcp]

My mother-in-law got it even though she double-masked and wore a face shield; she was probably the most paranoid of my close circle about getting the virus too; in fact, I personally thought she was taking risk aversion a little too far. My point was that doing those things isn't entirely foolproof, and very much depends on the extent that the people you associate with do those things regularly as well.

My take on why healthcare workers get first crack at getting the vaccine is that you are known to have more potential exposure to people with COVID on a regular basis by shear virtue of what you do at work on a daily basis, and that also we are reaching a point where we can't afford to have people out sick. Maybe the mentality was to keep hospitals themselves from being superspreader locations; all speculation on my part, but that's how I see it.

Vaccinating only the truly vulnerable also wouldn't seem like it would turn the pandemic around, which was ostensibly the whole point in developing a vaccine. There has to be a middle ground between "don't get vaccinated" and "throw whatever we have available to market and see if it sticks."

Sounds like your mother in law absolutely should be in the cohort to get vaccinated based on what i presume is an elderly age. Hope she is well.
You are correct that PPE and distancing is not foolproof, but you agree that it does mitigate risk significantly right?

we know that healthcare workers are far less likely to contract covid than the general population. Because ppe works and possibly healthcare workers are more conscious of preventive measures while in the community too.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Workers in a Tertiary Community Hospital When comparing the prevalence of antibodies among hospital employees with the rate reported by the State of New York for the general public on Long Island, hospital employees had a significantly lower positive rate (9.9% vs 16.7%, P < .001).

I believe healthcare workers absolutely should get the vaccine first- provided they are above certain age or have comorbidities.

Keep in mind that covid vaccine doesn’t prevent flu, rsv, rhinovirus etc which also would put you out of work all the same.

meanwhile, knowing that almost half of covid deaths are from patients living in ALF or SNF...and greater percent of severe covid hospitalized cases are from that same population AND vaccine supplies are limited...wouldn’t you agree the risk benefits support vaccinating them first over a young healthy healthcare worker? Preventing at least one icu/prolonged hospital stay and preventing ACTUAL death...is worth more than the risk of a young healthcare worker out sick for ten days.

Nursing homes account for 90% of COVID deaths in Knox County

Outbreaks in Knox County long-term care facilities account for more than 90 percent of all the county’s COVID-19 deaths as cases in nursing homes and assisted living facilities continue to rise.

www.galesburg.com

 

[greatnt249]

Sounds like your mother in law absolutely should be in the cohort to get vaccinated based on what i presume is an elderly age. Hope she is well.

healthcare workers absolutely should get the vaccine first- provided they are above certain age or have comorbidities.

However, we know that healthcare workers are also far less likely to contract covid than the general population. Because ppe works and possibly healthcare workers are more conscious of preventive measures while in the community too.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Workers in a Tertiary Community Hospital When comparing the prevalence of antibodies among hospital employees with the rate reported by the State of New York for the general public on Long Island, hospital employees had a significantly lower positive rate (9.9% vs 16.7%, P < .001).

Keep in mind that covid vaccine doesn’t prevent flu, rsv, rhinovirus etc which also would put you out of work all the same.

meanwhile, knowing that almost half of covid deaths are from patients living in ALF or SNF...and greater percent of severe covid hospitalized cases are from that same population...wouldn’t you agree the risk benefits support vaccinating them first over a young healthy healthcare worker? Preventing at least one icu/prolonged hospital stay and preventing actual death...is worth more than the risk of a young healthcare worker out sick for ten days.

Nursing homes account for 90% of COVID deaths in Knox County

Outbreaks in Knox County long-term care facilities account for more than 90 percent of all the county’s COVID-19 deaths as cases in nursing homes and assisted living facilities continue to rise.

www.galesburg.com

She only recently tested positive, so she would probably have to wait 90 days before getting the vaccine anyway.

I had to chuckle about flu, RSV, rhinovirus putting us out of work because, ironically, COVID is the reason that anyone who is even suspicious of being sick has to stay home. The culture before that was, for the most part, you come in to work anyway unless you were dying. The catch with COVID is, even if you only have nasal congestion, you're out at least 10 days compared with other URIs where you took a day or 2 off and came back when you felt better.

And I absolutely agree that the vulnerable should be in the first tier to get the vaccine...if they want it. It's not as if a young healthcare worker with significant exposure risk getting the vaccine is stealing a vaccine from someone in this category, though. I don't think a younger healthcare worker should be faulted for getting vaccinated if it's being offered to them; it's just as much their prerogative to get vaccinated as it is to defer.

 

[24858]

Makes sense, ignore and label anyone who disagrees (despite citing multiple sources backing up that opposition view) as a ‘troll’.

The 24% of SDN who voted no on taking the mrna vaccine also must be trolls.
/s

I frame it this way, if the vaccine turns out to have the same issue that was seen in 2005, mutant strains ending up having a much easier time of infecting vaccinated individuals and trending towards a more serious disease progression, then cohorts that were in a negligible risk cohort previously (such as you and I) could suddenly find themselves in a much higher risk cohort all of a sudden with no reversible course of action. Meanwhile if the vaccine does prove itself to be a tremendous advance in science and effective against mutated strains, you and I will have most likely not lost anything and will find ourselves able to join the millions whom are already vaccinated.

 

[GeneralVeers]

She only recently tested positive, so she would probably have to wait 90 days before getting the vaccine anyway.


And I absolutely agree that the vulnerable should be in the first tier to get the vaccine...if they want it. It's not as if a young healthcare worker with significant exposure risk getting the vaccine is stealing a vaccine from someone in this category, though. I don't think a younger healthcare worker should be faulted for getting vaccinated if it's being offered to them; it's just as much their prerogative to get vaccinated as it is to defer.

So if she had COVID why is she still paranoid? She should be relatively safe for a few months at least.

Also what you stated is not what we are doing. Most states made healthcare workers Tier 1, and then have put elderly in Tier 2. I agree with you in that the elderly/at risk should have been Tier 1 to prevent death. Healthcare workers should be in the second tier.

 

[wamcp]

She only recently tested positive, so she would probably have to wait 90 days before getting the vaccine anyway.

I had to chuckle about flu, RSV, rhinovirus putting us out of work because, ironically, COVID is the reason that anyone who is even suspicious of being sick has to stay home. The culture before that was, for the most part, you come in to work anyway unless you were dying. The catch with COVID is, even if you only have nasal congestion, you're out at least 10 days compared with other URIs where you took a day or 2 off and came back when you felt better.

And I absolutely agree that the vulnerable should be in the first tier to get the vaccine...if they want it. It's not as if a young healthcare worker with significant exposure risk getting the vaccine is stealing a vaccine from someone in this category, though. I don't think a younger healthcare worker should be faulted for getting vaccinated if it's being offered to them; it's just as much their prerogative to get vaccinated as it is to defer.

You’re right that a young worker accepting the vaccine isn’t necessarily stealing it from someone else who would benefit more than them. Declining the vaccine doesn’t change the (in my view) stupid policy of not offering the vaccine exclusively to older age healthcare workers and long term care facility residents at this time. We have not yet been offering the vaccine to nursing homes!!!

in France for example that is exactly what they are prioritizing.

• 1. Residents of Ehpads - France's Ehpads (nursing homes) are for people who are both elderly and ill, and therefore extremely vulnerable to Covid-19. Ehpads were very badly hit during the first wave of the virus, with around one third of all Covid-19 deaths occurring in nursing homes. These residents have therefore been made the top priority and will be vaccinated "on arrival of the very first doses" says Haute Autorité de Santé. Staff in Ehpads and high-risk residents of other types of long-term care facility are also included in phase 1.
• 2. Highest risk groups - phase 2 will concern all over 75s, and anyone in the 65-74 age group who has a chronic illness that makes them vulnerable to Covid, such as heart and lung conditions.
• 3. Vulnerable people and health workers - the third phase concerns anyone over 50 who has a chronic illness and all health workers and carers.
• 4. High-risk employment - people working in non-healthcare jobs that pose a high risk of infection, such as public-facing roles, and people in precarious situation such as the homeless.
• 5. All other adults - the final phase is over 18s who have no underlying health conditions and don't fit into one of the above groups. Children - who tend to get Covid-19 with mild symptoms - are not classed as a priority group.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

The actual percentage shouldn't matter. If the vaccine works (which I believe it does), then just having it widely available should be enough to remove restrictions. Remember, we are doing all of this to protect the elderly and at risk. Once they can get vaccinated, and become protected, then there's no reason to continue punishing society.

Except it should. Let's say tomorrow CVS announces that anyone can come and get the vaccine. If we go back to normal the day after, it would have done any good because not an appreciable number of people will have been able to get the vaccine.

 

[wamcp]

I frame it this way, if the vaccine turns out to have the same issue that was seen in 2005, mutant strains ending up having a much easier time of infecting vaccinated individuals and trending towards a more serious disease progression, then cohorts that were in a negligible risk cohort previously (such as you and I) could suddenly find themselves in a much higher risk cohort all of a sudden with no reversible course of action. Meanwhile if the vaccine does prove itself to be a tremendous advance in science and effective against mutated strains, you and I will have most likely not lost anything and will find ourselves able to join the millions whom are already vaccinated.

Agreed- making a decision to not vaccinate myself as a young healthy adult is literally based on currently available experimental vaccine data (which is the lack of it- we need more time) and evidence.

 

[greatnt249]

So if she had COVID why is she still paranoid? She should be relatively safe for a few months at least.

Also what you stated is not what we are doing. Most states made healthcare workers Tier 1, and then have put elderly in Tier 2. I agree with you in that the elderly/at risk should have been Tier 1 to prevent death. Healthcare workers should be in the second tier.

I meant leading up until when she tested positive she was pretty paranoid about getting it, to a degree that I thought was somewhat odd but I was of the opinion of "hey, you do you."

 

[GeneralVeers]

Except it should. Let's say tomorrow CVS announces that anyone can come and get the vaccine. If we go back to normal the day after, it would have done any good because not an appreciable number of people will have been able to get the vaccine.

How about a 30-day announcement? "Hey old people, the vaccine is available. Get it now, and then your second dose, cuz in 30 days we are open for business!"

 

[greatnt249]

So if she had COVID why is she still paranoid? She should be relatively safe for a few months at least.

Also what you stated is not what we are doing. Most states made healthcare workers Tier 1, and then have put elderly in Tier 2. I agree with you in that the elderly/at risk should have been Tier 1 to prevent death. Healthcare workers should be in the second tier.

Maybe healthcare workers were in tier 1 based on sheer logistics of vaccine storage and administration; we got Pfizer first where I'm at. Also seems easier to tally who qualifies as a healthcare worker as that cohort tends to be rather centralized than it is to try to account for the elderly/vulnerable AND ensure that there is enough vaccine to go around for two doses for each of them.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

How about a 30-day announcement? "Hey old people, the vaccine is available. Get it now, and then your second dose, cuz in 30 days we are open for business!"

If we had everything in place such that everyone could get fully vaccinated in those 30 days, I'd be fine with that.

The trick is, there's no way we can pull that off.

 

[turkeyjerky]

So if she had COVID why is she still paranoid? She should be relatively safe for a few months at least.

Also what you stated is not what we are doing. Most states made healthcare workers Tier 1, and then have put elderly in Tier 2. I agree with you in that the elderly/at risk should have been Tier 1 to prevent death. Healthcare workers should be in the second tier.

But when healthcare workers go out sick, people die. Keeping everyone healthy and working is a key component in avoiding rationing or just poor care in general. A single sick ICU nurse could mean that between 2 and 4 critically ill old people with covid don't have an ICU bed for 10 days. A sick janitor might mean someone codes in the waiting room.

Plus, maybe I'm just being selfish here, but I thing there's a strong moral argument that the people this country has been asking to take care of Covid patients for the past 10 months deserve every possible protection we can give them. Old people can cloister at home, we don't have that option.

If you wanted to make the argument that non-covid facing healthcare workers should be put in the same general population tier as dictated by their risk factors, I'd have no problem with that.

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

I know with hard data my risk from COVID, I have a greater risk of dying (while seat belted) in a car accident. I have zero data on my risk of taking this vaccine. What is my risk long term?

The other posters that hold this position keep avoiding this question--perhaps you can answer it.

When you say that you know with "hard data" your risk from COVID, the unspoken caveat is that you know your short term risk from covid. We don't have multi-year data following long-term effects on recovered patients. We have some reports and anecdotes of longer-lasting effects after people recover, but we by definition can't study long-term effects yet.

Is there a reason in particular that you are less concerned about the unknown potential long-term effects from the disease than the the unknown potential long-term effects from the vaccine?

 

[GeneralVeers]

But when healthcare workers go out sick, people die. Keeping everyone healthy and working is a key component in avoiding rationing or just poor care in general. A single sick ICU nurse could mean that between 2 and 4 critically ill old people with covid don't have an ICU bed for 10 days. A sick janitor might mean someone codes in the waiting room.

Wouldn't be an issue if we vaccinated all the nursing home patients who are most vulnerable. Again, if masks work, then vaccinating the elderly while keeping PPE on healthcare workers would be the best strategy.

Plus, maybe I'm just being selfish here, but I thing there's a strong moral argument that the people this country has been asking to take care of Covid patients for the past 10 months deserve every possible protection we can give them. Old people can cloister at home, we don't have that option.

Yes you are. The martyrdom that healthcare workers have been going on about for the past 10 months is repugnant. A bunch of people making 8-10 times the normal average salary shouldn't be griping about having to do what they are trained to do......see patients who are sick with a virus. Same goes for nurses and firefighters.

If you wanted to make the argument that non-covid facing healthcare workers should be put in the same general population tier as dictated by their risk factors, I'd have no problem with that.

That sounds logical.

 

[GeneralVeers]

not to speak for another poster, but do we have evidence of past coronaviruses having lasting morbidities, and if so, how much? We’ve evolved with viruses for millennia. Injecting foreign mRNA into our bodies in order to trick our bodies into producing viral spike proteins to be expressed on our cell membranes? That’s pretty radical. Unfathomable not all that long ago in our history as a species. Seems to me that we have much to learn about our innate immune systems prior to taking such radical approaches, but I’m just a dumb layman with concerns about the implications of science and technology advancing beyond our ability to comprehend what dangers may come from our newfound capabilities.

#sciencedenier

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

not to speak for another poster, but do we have evidence of past coronaviruses having lasting morbidities, and if so, how much? We’ve evolved with viruses for millennia.

Nothing specific to my knowledge. I had seen an article a while back that MERS survivors had poor long-term quality of life (unsure how it was defined), but I don't remember the methods. I'll look into it.

Injecting foreign mRNA into our bodies in order to trick our bodies into producing viral spike proteins to be expressed on our cell membranes? That’s pretty radical. Unfathomable not all that long ago in our history as a species.

Is it that radical? This is literally what viruses do, except the mRNA in the vaccine is not as extensive as the one in the real virus.

 

[thegenius]

We've had people test positive for COVID back in Feb and March. Why aren't we testing their titers every month to get data on how long natural immunity lasts? This cannot be difficult to do, provided the patient consents.

 

[greatnt249]

Yes you are. The martyrdom that healthcare workers have been going on about for the past 10 months is repugnant. A bunch of people making 8-10 times the normal average salary shouldn't be griping about having to do what they are trained to do......see patients who are sick with a virus. Same goes for nurses and firefighters.

To be fair, early on there was a concern that many would be thrust into this role without the assurance of having a consistent supply of proper PPE at the time. Salary shouldn't justify being thrown to the wolves without proper support.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

We've had people test positive for COVID back in Feb and March. Why aren't we testing their titers every month to get data on how long natural immunity lasts? This cannot be difficult to do, provided the patient consents.

I bet there are some places doing just that, especially with all the convalescent plasma donations happening

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

We’ve gotten the entire viral genome when a virus has successfully invaded our bodies previously. What are the implications of injecting ourselves with just a small portion that codes for the spike protein versus the entire viral genome? What cells are the target? How long does the mRNA stay active prior to being ubiquitinated and degraded by proteosomes? Why do some people do so poorly with the virus while others show no symptoms of infection at all?

I personally don't have the answers to all your questions. However, I have to remind you and everyone reading this thread that mRNA vaccines have been studied in humans since at least the mid-2000s (here's an example: Results of the first phase I/II clinical vaccination trial with direct injection of mRNA - PubMed). The effect of infecting naked mRNA in humans is not a complete unknown.

As for the long-term effects of these two specific mRNA vaccines, they remain to be seen, much in the same way that the long-term effects of this specific variant of coronavirus remain to be seen. Like you alluded in an earlier comment, we may get some clues from earlier coronavirus variants and earlier mRNA vaccines, though we can't rely fully on them as these are variants.

 

[AMEHigh]

We've had people test positive for COVID back in Feb and March. Why aren't we testing their titers every month to get data on how long natural immunity lasts? This cannot be difficult to do, provided the patient consents.

I know they’ve been doing that in my city for people that are donating their plasma. I have a colleague that was testing monthly with blood draws. Apparently even from the beginning of her infection she didn’t have a high enough antibody level to even donate (no clue what the threshold for donation is) but she kept going back to check her levels. I think she told me she had antibodies for about 6 months.

 

[24858]

The other posters that hold this position keep avoiding this question--perhaps you can answer it.

When you say that you know with "hard data" your risk from COVID, the unspoken caveat is that you know your short term risk from covid. We don't have multi-year data following long-term effects on recovered patients. We have some reports and anecdotes of longer-lasting effects after people recover, but we by definition can't study long-term effects yet.

Is there a reason in particular that you are less concerned about the unknown potential long-term effects from the disease than the the unknown potential long-term effects from the vaccine?

I will give my reasoning. The vast majority of people who are infected, I believe 80%, are asymptomatic, and of those only a certain percent will have a severe enough infection to be a long hauler or develop a post COVID syndrome. This is part of the reason I am following the iMASK protocol put together by Dr Marik to decrease my risk of having a severe COVID infection. My long term risk with the vaccine is unknown. Hope that helps.

 

[bravotwozero]

What’s the actual reinfection rate for those who’ve gotten the rona? We know it happens, but to what extent?

My understanding is that out of literally millions of cases around the world, they've found maybe 25 reinfections....statistically zero.

 

[Birdstrike]

I got my second Pfizer COVID vaccine dose today. I’ll update in 24 hours on any side effects if I have them. I don’t anticipate anything major. Except maybe total bone liquification, nails falling off, and extreme urges to gamble.

 

[JacobMcCandles]

I will give my reasoning. The vast majority of people who are infected, I believe 80%, are asymptomatic, and of those only a certain percent will have a severe enough infection to be a long hauler or develop a post COVID syndrome. This is part of the reason I am following the iMASK protocol put together by Dr Marik to decrease my risk of having a severe COVID infection. My long term risk with the vaccine is unknown. Hope that helps.

Oh yes, Dr. Marik of the famed sepsis metabolic cocktail. While he may be revered by the essential oil Facebook groups, I don't think any physicians should necessarily blindly follow this guy.

I'm too lazy to look into his iMASK protocol but I already know enough to know it's likely a joke.

 

[bravotwozero]

I got my second Pfizer COVID vaccine dose today. I’ll update in 24 hours on any side effects if I have them. I don’t anticipate anything major. Except maybe total bone liquification, nails falling off, and extreme urges to gamble.

what, no x-ray vision?

 

[Birdstrike]

what, no x-ray vision?

I already have x-ray vision as the proud owner of a GE OEC 9900 Elite 😊

 

[Birdstrike]

Remember the fear-porn that went like this, "But we dOn'T even kNow if iNfecTion oR aNtiboDies gIvEs iMMuNitY!?"

Yes they do. Antibodies equal protection for at least 6 months (probably more).

"...previous infection resulting in antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is associated with protection from reinfection for most people for at least 6 months..."

NEJM 12/23/20

 

[GeneralVeers]

Remember the fear-porn that went like this, "But we dOn'T even kNow if iNfecTion oR aNtiboDies gIvEs iMMuNitY!?"

Yes they do. Antibodies equal protection for at least 6 months (probably more).

"...previous infection resulting in antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is associated with protection from reinfection for most people for at least 6 months..."

NEJM 12/23/20

But even with antibodies you have to keep your mask on, social distance, and live in fear.....

 

[Birdstrike]

But even with antibodies you have to keep your mask on, social distance, and live in fear.....

Cuz "science"

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

But even with antibodies you have to keep your mask on, social distance, and live in fear.....

So are you advocating we start a centralized government registry to double-check if someone actually was infected so they can run around mask-free? Because you've been pretty adamant that the honor system doesn't work for any public health interventions.

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

Cuz "science"

More like "cuz a lot of people will definitely lie just to avoid the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask".

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

Remember the fear-porn that went like this, "But we dOn'T even kNow if iNfecTion oR aNtiboDies gIvEs iMMuNitY!?"

Yes they do. Antibodies equal protection for at least 6 months (probably more).

"...previous infection resulting in antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is associated with protection from reinfection for most people for at least 6 months..."

NEJM 12/23/20

I mean, "we don't know enough" (in March) and "we found out" (in December) are not mutually exclusive statements. I'm not really sure what you're upset about here.

 

[Birdstrike]

More like "cuz a lot of people will definitely lie just to avoid the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask".

On the face of it, your point is correct. There's no good way to police who's had the vaccine or not, in busy public settings, hence the need to keep a broad policy that applies equally to everyone no matter what that policy is, until the pandemic is over. But I think General Veers was responding more to the growing movement among certain people to make pandemic measures the norm even after the pandemic is over.

Will masks become the 'new normal' even after the pandemic has passed? Some Americans say so

Some Americans are realizing that wearing a mask isn't a big deal. Even after the crisis has passed, they'd keep wearing them in crowded places, especially with a cough or sniffle.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Birdstrike]

I mean, "we don't know enough" (in March) and "we found out" (in December) are not mutually exclusive statements. I'm not really sure what you're upset about here.

I'm not upset. I'm happy.

 

[GeneralVeers]

On the face of it, your point is correct. There's no good way to police who's had the vaccine or not, in busy public settings, hence the need to keep a broad policy that applies equally to everyone no matter what that policy is, until the pandemic is over. But I think General Veers was responding more to the growing movement among certain people to make pandemic measures the norm even after the pandemic is over.

Will masks become the 'new normal' even after the pandemic has passed? Some Americans say so

Some Americans are realizing that wearing a mask isn't a big deal. Even after the crisis has passed, they'd keep wearing them in crowded places, especially with a cough or sniffle.

www.cnbc.com

You are correct. Shifting goalposts are what frustrates me the most.

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

But I think General Veers was responding more to the growing movement among certain people to make pandemic measures the norm even after the pandemic is over.

What I got out of this article is that some people will likely wear masks when they are sick (as is the norm in Asia), not that people will wear masks 24/7 even if asymptomatic. That seems entirely sensible to me.

 

[turkeyjerky]

What I got out of this article is that some people will likely wear masks when they are sick (as is the norm in Asia), not that people will wear masks 24/7 even if asymptomatic. That seems entirely sensible to me.

Agreed, that article seems pretty reasonable. Although, thinking about it I wouldn’t be surprised if some in the more paranoid set keep wearing them 24/7. Hopefully the mandates and the more ridiculous examples of hygiene theater go away though.