Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Covid Vaccine Thread


Cooked Crack
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

You have certain demographics who are at very little risk of anything serious happening with the virus. You also have at least one vaccine being "paused" by the CDC. I disagree it's ignorant for someone to delay their vaccine if they aren't overly concerned about the virus and want more information about the vaccines. It's odd to me that this is so black and white to everyone. 


those demographics at little risk can and are spreading it to those at higher risk. So it’s not so cut and dry. Unless said demographics are staying home and socially distancing. Then, fine. But if they’re out at the kids sports fields and eating at restaurants then **** them. 
 

also it being paused is a sign the system is working in having due diligence and being overly cautious. Not that there was a problem with the vaccine and the skeptics were right. 
 

just like the shut down of the not-yet-approved facility producing ingredients for J&J was a sign of the system working 

 

or the cdc constantly adjusting guidance as data paints a better picture. 
 

it irritates me that caution and due diligence is coopted by skeptics that have nothing real to back their arguments up except to incorrectly point to things like this. 
 

they aren’t even confident the 6 cases are actually linked to the vaccine. They’re just being careful. As they should be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tshile said:


the only thing I’ve hear that seems to have merit is the rushed timeline. 
 

now, I don’t dabble in circles where this sort of mentality (“vaccine hesitancy” seems to be the polite term) is a thing and regularly discussed, so it’s not like I’m aware of all the arguments. 
 

and I’m certainly not an expert in any field related (though I feel a kinship as a programmer with the mRNA people! How ****ing cool is that tech!!) 

 

But I think it’s healthy to have skepticism about a rushed process. 
 

and as a person that feels that way, I took the first vaccine available to me. 
 

🤷‍♂️

Same here. I'm just not applying my comfort level to everyone out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that because the vaccine development was fast makes it untrustworthy is wrong.  This was an incredibly fast vaccine development for a number of easy to understand reasons.  First, because of the overwhelming risk (contagiousness x severity) of COVID19, an unprecedented investment (both in money and personnel) went into vaccine development.  Also, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are a "new" type of vaccine based on mRNA technology.  This technology has been around for a while (I've been working with it for years) and it is actually far, far easier (with modern tools) to make this type of vaccine than "traditional" vaccines.   

 

That said, the speed of development and the incredible efficacy of these vaccines is something to be celebrated.  Its pretty awesome, should get people more excited about science, not skeptical.

Edited by bcl05
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

The idea that because the vaccine development was fast makes it untrustworthy is wrong

I think there’s a difference between being scared, and thinking it’s untrustworthy. 
 

im scared. Scared of covid even though I already had it. Scared the vaccine even though I took it. Scared of the cdc and fda report even though it may not be related, seems to be 6 out of over a million, and seems to be related to low platelets. 
 

I don’t think the vaccines are inherently untrustworthy. 
 

and while I have a great, great amount of respect for expertise and the people driving this... I’m also aware that everyone makes mistakes and **** happens and even moreso when things are rushed. 
 

I have faith in our cdc and the approval boards. I liked how they shut down under 18 at first simply because there was not enough data in the trials for under 18. I do not think these people are incompetent, evil, dumb, or bad at their jobs. 
 

but as a person not in the field and pretty... uninformed on viruses and vaccines... yeah. It’s ****ing scary. And I think that’s ok. 
 

and if I was willing to stay on my house for another 6 months I may not have gotten it. But I’m losing my ****ing mind and ultimately I have faith in our cdc, medical field, etc. so I got my vaccine. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think there’s a difference between being scared, and thinking it’s untrustworthy. 

 

I think it is totally fine to be scared.  The last year has been a damn nightmare.  I'm a doc, and have spent enough time on the front lines of this C19 fight that I haven't slept soundly in months.  Scared is a normal response to this.  

 

In spite of our fears (or maybe because of them), we all need to work together and do the right things to get past this.  Too many people are, whether because of stupidity or fear, making really dumb decisions that are putting themselves and others at too much risk.  

 

It is fine to be scared.  It is not OK to make dumb, uninformed decisions.  It sounds like you've done everything right.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

That's fair...but when those "rare long term reactions" are also the most likely complication from the actual virus that's when the cost-benefit analysis begins to seem logical. I'm not an anti-vaxxer at all. My kids got all their shots for public school, etc. It's just that when you hear about side effects, blood clots, and then know that what's lacking in the approval of the vaccines are the long-term reactions, it starts to make you wonder why running out to get the vaccine is truly such a slam dunk decision. 

 

I think there's a few things here:

 

1. I want everyone to get vaccinated who falls under the EUA guidelines but I will never ostracize people for being hesitant or wanting as much information as possible. When Trump was considering going around the FDA to approve them last fall, there would have been ZERO shot I even consider taking it and even Fauci said he would have told people don't take it. Attacking people who simply want as much info. as possible is counterproductive. It's like trying to pull people put of QAnon by yelling at them.

 

2. Comparing the virus and this issue with the CVT – as of now the odds of clotting when you get COVID-19 are as high as 7-11%. Even in mild cases people clot in the lungs, and that is a big misconception right now - that if you don't go to the hospital the virus did no damage. Lots of mild cases have caused long-term issues and who knows what that means down the line (the same question people ask about vaccines). Compare that 7-11% in newer studies to the 1 in a million odds of CVT from JnJ vaccine and it's not really a close comparison. Of course as they research the potential link, we should absolutely amend who gets what vaccine to lower the risk even more. That all of the cases are women 18-48 is not a coincidence potentially.

 

3. 90% of adverse reactions to vaccines are within the first 40-45 days, which is why the FDA asked to see at least 60 days of safety data. If this risk ends up being the 1 in a million it is now, that's hard to see even if you did a clinical trial of 500,000 people over 10 years, you may not see it in a single one of them. The odds of the same clot is much higher in women who take birth control pills (1 in 3000). You have a better chance of being struck by lightning. OTC NSAIDS like Advil put people in the hospital every year - thousands.

 

Nobody wanted to read today's headlines but the good thing is, the observation system is working, they are going to do the proper analysis to see what's happening and they didn't try to cover it up. It will hurt in the short run as people get nervous, but the transparency is better than if they said ehh 1 in a million is so low why address it and scare people. It could be there is something to the adenovirus vector vaccines (JNJ/AZ) but regardless we put things into our bodies everyday that probably have way higher odds of long-term effects - soda, white bread, trans fats, highly processed foods etc.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcl05 said:

The idea that because the vaccine development was fast makes it untrustworthy is wrong.  This was an incredibly fast vaccine development for a number of easy to understand reasons.  First, because of the overwhelming risk (contagiousness x severity) of COVID19, an unprecedented investment (both in money and personnel) went into vaccine development.  Also, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are a "new" type of vaccine based on mRNA technology.  This technology has been around for a while (I've been working with it for years) and it is actually far, far easier (with modern tools) to make this type of vaccine than "traditional" vaccines.   

 

That said, the speed of development and the incredible efficacy of these vaccines is something to be celebrated.  Its pretty awesome, should get people more excited about science, not skeptical.

 

I agree that these new vaccines and how they work are great and convinced me to get vaccinated when I could. The fact that they aren't formulated like the flu vaccines and other vaccines based on live or dead cells are a wonderful piece of scientific engineering. The old technology is why I won't get flu vaccines because it's largely a guessing game of which strain will emerge in many months. 

 

Thanks for sharing your information so I am glad that I got the Pfizer vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another failure of the media is making people think researchers just came up with mRNA technology in 2020. In fact, research into mRNA for therapeutics has been going on for 50 years since UK researchers put rabbit mRNA into frog cells and saw the cells make protein that a rabbit would. The first RNA drug was approved in the late 1990s and the first mRNA vaccine trial was done in 2008, most failures before, because of lack of efficacy as mRNA doesn't last very long in the body (thanks to ribonucleases).

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been working with mRNAs as a possible treatment for rare genetic diseases.  The big problem is the immunogenicity, which is exactly what makes it a wonderful tech for vaccines.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah.  Sorry for the jargon.  Let me explain (because it is cool):

 

In the diseases I take care of, patients are missing a gene that produces an enzyme (protein machine) that breaks down a particular molecule.  We want to restore that missing function to keep them healthy.  One idea is to give them the mRNA (which is transcribed a gene and is the template from for a protein) for the gene they are missing.  This works great initially, but the mRNA itself and the protein it produces are both viewed as foreign by the patient and they mount a big immune system reaction.  This means antibodies that inactivate the protein they need and nasty inflammatory symptoms, and the treatment no longer works.  This is a major problem for using this technology to give patients mRNA they need/want.  

 

However, this makes it fantastic as a vaccine tool.  The goal of vaccination is to produce an immune system reaction so that the patient will have antibodies ready to react when the virus actually shows up.  With the pfizer and moderna vaccines, we get mRNA for one of the COVID19 genes (not the entire viral genome - just a single gene).  This forces the cells that take up that mRNA to produce COVID19 spike protein, which is new to the patient, and immediately seen as foreign/invasive.  Then the patient produces lots of antibodies and inflammatory processes to mount a defense to the presumed infection (which isn't actually happening - its just the spike protein, not a whole virus).  That inflammatory reaction is why you might get a fever and feel achy/tired after the vaccine.  Then, when/if you ever actually get exposed to the real deal COVID19, you already have antibodies that can respond immediately and shut it down before an infection actually sets in.

 

The really really cool thing about this is how easy it is to make these now.  With current genetic engineering tools, once we have a DNA sequence (whether its from a virus or anything else) we can make the mRNA very quickly and easily.  It's kind of analogous to biochemical 3D-printing, and there is almost no moving parts/variables involved.  Far, far easier than old-fashioned vaccine production, where we would have to grow live virus in living cells (usually chicken eggs, hamster ovaries, or some other complex system), and then extract/isolate the virus and inactivate it.  Far more variables and far more things that can go wrong.  Once the SARS-CoV-19 viral genome was published (which was done in less than a day last january - would have taken a year or more 20 years ago), it took almost no time to make the mRNA and get started on the vaccine.  The other cool thing about this tech is that as new variants emerge in the circulating virus, we can tweak/alter the sequence of the mRNA for new boosters targeted to the new variants.  

 

I suspect this will be the way many/most new vaccines are made in the future.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thank goodness that two of my GFs had Ph.D in the sciences so I understand quite a bit of how the human body biochemistry works. I never studied science much in college so I don't have any direct schooling in this field. I did read both of their dissertations and understood them until getting into the math discussions. Math is not my forte. This background is why I looked at all of the mRNA information I could and then decided to get the vaccine when first offered instead of taking my chances here among the Texas Death Cult ruling everything here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing I forgot to add above:  

 

The simple single-gene nature of the mRNA vaccines is also why I would expect them to be exceedingly safe.  They are really very simple concoctions, and there is no live virus or inactivated virus (like there is in many other older vaccines - not that those are bad/unsafe, just more complex).  The mRNA that is in the virus goes into the cytoplasm (not the nucleus) and doesn't interact with the host DNA at all.  The mRNA (like all naturally produced mRNAs - our cells make gazillions of mRNA molecules all the time) is used and then degraded quickly and there should be no long term effects other than you now have memory/readiness/antibodies for COVID spike protein.  

 

There is a small risk of allergic reaction, just like there would be with anything you ingest or inject.  Most allergic reactions seem to be not to the mRNA itself, but to the polyethylene glycol (PEG) which is used to make tiny oil-like droplets of mRNA, so that they can be taken up by cells.  PEG is in tons of stuff, including lots of medications, including many over-the-counter ones.  Some people who have had lots of exposure to PEG (long term treatment with frequent injectable meds) seem to have a higher incidence of reaction, probably because they are already sensitized to PEG.  I'd still strongly encourage vaccination for people who have had reactions to PEG meds in the past, because the reactions are almost always minor and manageable, and the value of C19 immunity is immense.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bearrock said:

*furiously googles to try to sound smarter than @bcl05*

 

If you talk about almost anything other than genes and mRNA, you almost certainly have me beat.  This is my job, but there are plenty of things I'm real dumb about.  Just ask my kids.  

Edited by bcl05
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bcl05

 

so I got J&J. Which is not mRNA. 
 

let’s assume for a second they just stop the J&J program because the issue it’s causing isn’t worth it, regardless of how rare, when we have enough of everything else. 
 

Let’s also assume there will be boosters. 

 

What are your thoughts on getting J&J initially and switching to an mRNA booster?


If they don’t stop it and I have a choice what should I chose? Is there value in switching? Value in sticking to the same thing? Etc. 

 

im just curious cause our media sucks at explaining these things in a way that isn’t super dumbed down to the point of being useless. 

Also, should I now sell my J&J stock?

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

@bcl05

 

so I got J&J. Which is not mRNA. 
 

let’s assume for a second they just stop the J&J program because the issue it’s causing isn’t worth it, regardless of how rare, when we have enough of everything else. 
 

Let’s also assume there will be boosters. 

 

What are your thoughts on getting J&J initially and switching to an mRNA booster?


If they don’t stop it and I have a choice what should I chose? Is there value in switching? Value in sticking to the same thing? Etc. 

 

im just curious cause our media sucks at explaining these things in a way that isn’t super dumbed down to the point of being useless. 

Also, should I now sell my J&J stock?

 

FWIW, France is recommending younger people to switch to mRNA for second shot after astrazeneca, it looks like switching from traditionally developed vaccine to mRNA isn't an issue (though I'm sure the CDC will provide guidelines if it comes to boosters

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france-vaccines-idUSKBN2BW0L7

 

Also, what's being said about the pause for now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/13/dr-anthony-fauci-explains-what-the-us-pause-on-jjs-covid-vaccine-means.html

Quote

Fauci said officials at the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention want to see if there are "any clues" and "find some common denominators among the women who were involved" that could be enabling the blood clotting disorder known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, or CVST.

 

He also said the recommended pause will make physicians aware of the issue. Doctors typically treat that type of blood clot with heparin, a blood thinner, but Fauci said that could be dangerous in this case and noted health officials recommended a different treatment.

 

"If someone comes in with this really rather rare syndrome of thrombotic thrombocytopenia where you get thromboses, the most common way to treat that would be with heparin," Fauci said during a White House news briefing. "That would be a mistake in this situation because that could be dangerous and make the situation worse." 

 

I think most of Europe restarted astrazeneca for recommendation on target group after CVT became an issue as well.  So hopefully it doesn't become a big deal.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bearrock said:

 

FWIW, France is recommending younger people to switch to mRNA for second shot after astrazeneca

Yeah and mnbc basically ran all night with “holy **** look how dumb and dangerous France is?!?!”

 

i think one of the hosts even said something like “they’re not even the same vaccine! This hasn’t even been tested! This isn’t science!!”

 

and honestly that was my first thought too but i at least recognize I don’t know a damn thing about it all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...